VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
243 
evidence had been given for the purpose of disproving any one portion 
of the evidence respecting the injury to the cattle. They had heard a 
good deal from other people, who lived in other directions, on different 
levels of ground, and at different distances ; but not one word had 
been spoken by any one of them which tended to interfere with the 
perfect accuracy of every statement made by Mr. Ashton. He seriously 
asked them whether they could attribute the manifestations made by 
these cattle to any other cause than that which the witnesses had attri¬ 
buted it to on the preceding day. This mill had been at work for no 
doubt three seasons; but in the third season (1859), the process of 
mixing was changed by using the liquor, in which the bones had been 
boiled, instead of pure water; and then these mixings might have 
taken place at different periods of the season, and under different cir¬ 
cumstances. Salt was also used, which was not used in other manu¬ 
factories. It had not been clearly proved that the identical thing was 
done in the years 1857 and 1858, as was in 1859. On every occasion 
the course of the vapour had been traced to the mill, and the cattle 
did not recover from the effects of such vapour, and did not again 
settle down as before. The identity of the smell was established. He 
had endeavoured to shape his remarks in such a form as to call their 
attention to the sworn evidence in the case. The fact of Mr. Ashton’s 
case had been truly made out in evidence, and some other mode 
should be adopted at the mill which would not render the property of 
other people liable to be injured or destroyed. 
The learned Judge then summed up; and in doing so, he said the 
law was not made for the fastidious or the sensitive. They were not to 
misunderstand the action. If a person were walking along the streets, 
on a muddy day, and somebody’s carriage were accidentally to spatter 
him ; or if a person were riding along a road, and caused a dust which 
went in somebody’s eyes,—it would be foolish to raise an action upon 
that ground. The question was, how the cattle came to be injured— 
whether it was from the vapour from the mill, or from some peculiar 
feature inherent in the animals. It would have been better if some 
person scientifically acquainted with the habits of cattle had thrown 
some light upon the last point. Was it made out to their satisfaction 
that the defendant did injure the plaintiff’s cattle by contaminating the 
air ? This was not one of those cases in which people were affected by 
inhaling acid vapours, such as muriatic acid, nitric acid, and other acids 
while being thrown off works. Dr. Bernays had been called, and they 
were to remember that he, in his evidence, stated that the vapour was 
not injurious to health. With respect to the difference in the carrying 
on the trade, there was only the evidence of the mixture of the bones 
in the last year with the liquor in which such bones had been boiled, 
water having been used the year before. The evidence of Dr. Bernays 
only went so far as to say that the addition of salt would make the smell 
more disagreeable. Then the important consideration was, that during 
the years 1857 and 1858, there was no injury at all to the cattle from 
the smell. How came it in the year 1859 to produce such an effect 
upon the plaintiff’s cattle? The addition of the liquor, Dr. Bernays (a 
scientific gentleman) had told them would make it a little more disa¬ 
greeable. That was strongly in favour of the negative. A very great 
number of persons had been called from different directions of the mill, 
and nearer the mill than the plaintiff’s land, who stated that no effect 
was produced upon their cattle. It was argued by the learned counsel 
for the plaintiff, that the mill had not the same effect upon the cattle 
belonging to witnesses for the defence ; accounting for it by the con- 
