304 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
Mr. W. Rowland , veterinary surgeon, of Loughborough, deposed to 
examining the horse at the Ship Inn, Rempstone, on the 14th of 
October. Found him lame of the near fore foot, but did not take off 
the shoe; there was a thickness of the crust of the hoof, and the 
walls were upright. From the appearances indicated, he was of opinion 
that the horse was lame of the navicular joint, of some months’ standing; 
in such a state rest would alleviate it lor a time; that disease might 
exist some time before it would develop itself, and might not show 
itself till pressed upon a hard stone. iSever saw what was called a con¬ 
cussion of the coffin joint, that being now exploded. [Mr. Huish here 
quoted from a work of xMr. Turner, showing that, to all appearances, a 
horse might go out of the stable in the morning quite sound, and mani¬ 
fest the disease before its return.] 
Bv Mr. Perkins —It was not a necessary consequence that horses 
suffering from that disease should have contracted hoofs. From the 
12th of August to the 4th of October there might not be ulceration of 
the navicular bone ; that disease could not have been produced between 
the 12th of August and the 4th of October. Did not say there was 
ulceration, but there might be; the navicular disease, which was a most 
singular one, did not always manifest itself alike in horses. 
Mr. Perkins briefly addressed the Court for the defence, contending 
that the lameness was produced by the plaintiff’s man, that the horse was 
now sound, and that from the evidence of .Mr. Barlow, whom he should 
call, it would be proved that the lameness arose from an affection of 
the coffin joint. 
Mr. Walkington, the defendant, detailed many particulars mentioned 
by previous witnesses, adding that he had had the horse nearly two 
years, and although he regularly worked him, he never showed any 
symptoms of lameness. 
Thomas Bramley, John Haywood , Mr. Thomas Marshall, and William 
Brad well , all deposed to the same effect. 
Air. Robert Barlow, veterinary surgeon, of Cotgrave, said he examined 
the horse on the 7th of October carefully; found him lame of the near 
fore foot, both hoofs being perfectly formed, and as much alike as any 
“twin sisters” could be. He found there was concussion of the coffin 
joint, and he prescribed a remedy, which he told them at the time 
would effect a cure; after the bruise inflammation would take place. 
If the disease had been of long standing, the hoofs would have been 
contracted, which in this instance was not the case; had there been 
a rupture of the tendon, it would have been there at that moment. 
He saw the horse on Tuesday last, and again that very day; the two 
feet being as perfect as nature could possibly make, them, and the horse 
was as sound as ever, and being in the town could be seen bv the jury 
if they chose. In his cross-examination, Mr. Barlow ridiculed the 
work of Mr. Turner, designating the version of the “ navicular disease ” 
as a handle for the ignorant portion of the profession to which he 
belonged : contending that the disease would show itself as soon as it 
was in existence, whether at plough, at grass, or, if they pleased, upon 
a feather bed. 
Mr. George Rossell , a veterinary surgeon, held the same opinion as 
Mr. Barlow, and said the horse was now quite sound, and that if it had 
been the navicular disease, it could not have been in the state in which 
he had that day seen it. 
Mr. Huish having replied, his Honour summed up at considerable 
length, recapitulated such parts of the evidence as bore more particu¬ 
larly upon the question at issue, reminding the jury that the point for 
