366 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
examining the horse, and also the difference (£13) between the cost of 
the gray horse and the sum it fetched when sold, together with whatever 
amount besides the Jury might think proper to award. 
The Plaintiff, being called, supported in every respect the statements 
of the learned counsel, and some other evidence having been adduced, 
the effect of which is also embodied in the foregoing— 
Mr. Mellor addressed the Jury for the defendant. He observed that 
when they had heard the case throughout, they would probably be of 
opinion that the defendant, who was, as his learned friend had stated, a 
professional gentleman of considerable standing, was not liable. Now 
in this case he had to contend that there was no bailment, in other 
words, that there was no delivery of the horse to Mr. Stanley except for 
a proper and specific purpose. The horse was delivered to Mr. Stanley 
in no other sense than a patient who went to consult a doctor. It was 
sent to Mr. Stanley for the purpose of being examined, in order that he 
might certify whether or not it was sound, and for no other, so that 
there was no taking, legally speaking, beyond what is requisite for a 
professional examination. 
His Lordship here interposed that there was a certain custody of the 
animal accorded to Mr. Stanley when he was given him to ride for the 
purpose of examination. He was desirous that the case should be divested 
of all technicality. The parties came there to try whether a veterinary 
surgeon, who also kept a farrier's shop, was bound to have the latter kept 
in such a condition as that a horse might be tied up in it with safety. 
If the floor was not properly swept, and substances were left lying 
about which ought not to be, and the horse in question sustained injury 
thereby, the veterinary surgeon was responsible either for his owm 
negligence or for that of his servants. 
Mr. Mellor said he had no wish to blink this question, but he wished 
to call the attention of the Jury to it as a question of liability. After 
going through the facts he should have to submit, the learned counsel 
called the defendant, Mr. Stanley. 
He stated that he had been in practice as a veterinary surgeon for thirty 
years. When the horse was brought to him, something being said 
about its having small feet, he took the shoes off to measure them, and 
to see if the hoofs were sound. He discovered that the feet were 
naturally small, but that there was no disease. They weut into the 
office for a few moments, and afterwards, on returning, he noticed that 
the horse was resting one of its fore legs on the point of the hoof, and 
before he could lift it up to ascertain what was the matter he limped 
more than once, and on examination he found that the horse had 
trodden upon a nail, and that he had forced it further into his foot by 
putting the latter down on the floor. A heap of hoof-parings were 
lying under the wall, about eighteen inches or two feet from the horse’s 
feet, and he (the defendant) believed he must have pawed them, and so 
have got the nail into his foot; but whether the nail w T as on the floor or 
amongst the parings it was impossible to say. He told the men that he 
was surprised they had allowed the parings to accumulate. The prac¬ 
tice in his forge was to have all the nails picked up from the floor, and 
put in a box distinct from the parings. This was an accident which 
w ould occasionally happen. At the time of the casualty, he (defendant) 
promised the plaintiff he would attend professionally upon the horse 
without charge under the circumstances, but he stipulated that Mr. 
Wilden must pay for the keep. 
In cross-examination, the defendant said the parings w’ere the accu¬ 
mulations of the previous week. He had continued the same practice 
