242 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
from 1000 to 1100 acres of land at Lubbenham. Part of it was within 
half a mile of the bone-mill. Part -of it was in an easterly direction 
and part in a westerly direction. Some of it lay between Mr. Ashton’s 
land and the mill. Witness was in the habit of going to it three or 
four times a week. He occupied the land before the bone-mills were 
there. The cattle had never been in the least affected by the bone-mill. 
Beasts got restless in the summer, more or less. It was no uncommon 
thing for beasts to huddle together. They generally separated when 
they were gadding. 
By Mr. Macaulay. —Could not say when he first heard that Mr. 
Ashton’s beasts had suffered. He was in the habit of going to Lub¬ 
benham three or four times a week. His own shepherd mentioned to 
him about the beasts. 
Robert Cart , farmer and grazier, of Smeeton Westerby, said he had 
occupied about thirty acres of land in Bowden, just above the bone- 
mills, for fifteen years. His father had occupied the same before him. 
The cattle had not done worse since the bone-mill had been erected. 
He had seen the vapour come into his field, but they were not affected 
by it. 
By Mr. Macaulay. —Heard of Mr. Ashton’s beasts at different 
markets. 
Joseph Brown , of Market Harborough, said he occupied thirty acres 
of land to the north of the bone-mills, and also overlooked land be¬ 
longing to Mr. Dalby. Some of his land was within a quarter of a 
mile from the mill. He kept feeding beasts and store beasts, which he 
was in the habit of going to see there frequently. His beasts had done 
as well as usual, and had not been disturbed by the bone-mills. 
By Mr. Macaulay. —His land was in the valley below the bone-mills. 
Could not say how much below the mills. He had got a very good nose, 
but he never smelt any smell. 
William Weston , William Price , William Hyde , John Warren , John 
Holmes, Thomas Rowlett, and Francis Montgomery , who either occupied 
land near to the bone-mills, or were in the service of farmers occupying 
land near to them, gave similar evidence to the preceding. 
Professor Simonds, of the Royal Veterinary College, and Professor 
Way, late Consulting Chemist to the Royal Agricultural Society, as 
scientific witnesses, were also in attendance on the part of the defendant, 
but were not called, the evidence being so conclusive of so many other 
cattle being unaffected by the vapour of the mill. 
Mr. Mellor again addressed the jury. He said there must be some¬ 
thing remarkable about the beasts of the plaintiff, because the wit¬ 
nesses he had called, who had beasts grazing on land very near to the 
mill, would have the same interest as the plaintiff in the matter, and 
would not have come there to swear as they had done, if their cattle had 
been similarly affected. 
Mr. Macaulay then addressed the jury for the plaintiff. He said 
nothing had been laid before them to show that it was not perfectly 
possible and easy, at a small expense, to conduct this mixing operation 
upon these very premises so as to prevent a recurrence of the nuisance 
which undoubtedly took place in the course of last summer. This 
being so, the real question in this case was whether the operation 
of this bone-mill did, or did not, in the months of May and June last, 
do an injury to the property of Mr. Ashton. This was a question of 
fact. His learned friend was good enough to say, in the course of his 
address, that Mr. Ashton’s case was all a “fudge,” and that no injury 
had been done. He appealed to them whether one single particle of 
