203 
UNSOUNDNESS IN HORSES. 
By A *45 “ Vet.” 
The present paper contains a few hastily penned remarks, 
which occurred to the mind of the writer after conning over 
the reports of the trial “ Durie v. Hopwood ,” which took place 
at Westminster, February 11th; and a second case which was 
tried in Dublin on February 13th; and a third between a 
friend of the author and a veterinary surgeon, which was like¬ 
wise tried during the past month. 
The month of February would thus appear to have been very 
prolific in producing a difference of opinion upon facts. I had 
always considered that “ facts were stubborn things,” but it 
seems that, in these “ go-a-head days/’ facts are not to be 
received as facts; this, at least, is the inference to be drawn 
from the statements made at the trial of Durie v. Hopwood, 
by some of our scienced men. It can readily be believed that 
a difference of opinion may arise upon matters not brought 
before the eye; that is, upon things unseen. I can also 
easily comprehend a horse with spavin being sold by a dealer 
as a sound horse; but I cannot so readily understand how 
two veterinary surgeons can examine an animal’s hocks, and 
the one declare that he is free from spavin, and the other 
that not only he is a spavined horse, but also that he is lame 
therefrom. These two opposite opinions are inexplicable; 
and it is the existence of such a state of things which causes 
the profession to be looked down upon. 
The case of “ Durie v. Hopwood ’’ is so plainly put forward, 
both in the newspapers and The Veterinarian , that I need not 
occupy any space in further allusion to it, but proceed to 
call attention to a trial which is reported in l'lie Newry 
Telegraph of February l6th, “ Ormsby v. The Dundalk Railway 
Company.” 
It appears a race-horse, named “ CoopeV s-HlUf was sent to 
Carrickmacross; and, on the journey, was detained by the 
officials of the railway company ; the result of which was that 
the horse became affected with cold, and was thus rendered 
unfit to run satisfactorily in the race. The evidence of the 
two veterinary surgeons I give as reported in the paper: 
“ Joseph Doyle, examined by Mr. Rollestone , Q.C. —Is a 
veterinary surgeon ; had experience of race and steeplechase 
horses; the detention of such a horse would injure him, and 
interfere with his running for the time being. 
“ Cross-examined by Mr. Armstrong , Q.C. —Heard the wit- 
