VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 629 
have improved. It was in the same state still, and was not likely to 
recover itself for some years. 
His Lordship. —Then this is an undefended cause. 
Mr. Chambers. —Pardon me, my lord. If your lordship waits, you 
will see. 
His Lordship. —I must wait, I suppose; but my opinion must prevail 
by-and-by. 
Examination continued.—About the time plaintiff took the farm, he 
called and had a conversation respecting the works. Plaintiff asked for 
an analysis of the smoke, and said he thought by good farming he 
could make the farms productive, and obviate the effects of the smoke 
by good manuring. Plaintiff could see the state of the land as well as 
the seven jurors the other day. Saw plaintiff occasionally for three 
years, and he never complained till 1856 of any less of crops or cattle. 
In June of that year, made a claim on the plaintiff for coal and rent, 
and the plaintiff said he had a claim against defendant for damage done 
by copper smoke. Plaintiff did not send to him to see the animals 
before or after they were dead. On the 25th June, 1856, plaintiff sent 
a letter, in which he said he did not want to plunder the defendant, 
but to seek for a remedy, and for that purpose had consulted Mr. 
Hevapath. In the latter part of that year, plaintiff brought an action 
for damages, which was tried at Carmarthen. Defendant had agreed 
to take both the Coed-yr-Allt farms. Since learnt that plaintiff had 
agreed to take the farms on a lease. 
His Lordship. —That will enable the defendant to damage with impu¬ 
nity for a longer time. 
Mr. Chambers .—I do not admit that he is doing damage. 
His Lordship. —Are you not damaging the land at this moment ? 
Witness. —Yes, my lord. 
Mr. Chambers wished his lordship to let him go on with the cause. 
He would show that the damage was only partial. 
Witness handed in a list of the surrounding works and the number 
of furnaces in each. When the wind was S.S.W., the smoke would 
come from Lambert’s works upon plaintiff’s farms; and also from the 
Swansea works with a S.W. wind. The smoke from our works did very 
little damage to plaintiff’s farm excepting immediately opposite, and 
that was caused by the configuration of the ground and the vicinity of 
the sea. 
Cross-examined.—On the 30th of June, 1857, received a letter from 
plaintiff, asking him to send some one to examine the crops, and calling 
his attention to the fact that the works were being extended, and would 
seriously damage his property. Went on plaintiff’s land, but did not see 
animals particularly. They were to be seen if he had had his eyes open. 
Since 1850 the rateable value of the works had greatly increased ; be¬ 
lieved it had risen from £10 to £240. 
Re-examined.—Plaintiff did not, in his opinion, farm properly. His 
hay crops were of small value indeed. 
By the Judge.—The damage which had been done was increasing as 
the works increased, but he denied damage to the extent imputed by 
the plaintiff. 
A number of other witnesses were examined for the defendant. 
The learned counsel, Mr. Chambers, summed up to the jury, ad¬ 
dressing them on the social advantages of commerce, and the propriety 
of selecting a fit and proper place for this work. 
Mr. Grove then replied, arguing that the defendant’s case was no 
answer to the plaintiff’s on the subject of damage to the stock and 
xxxiii. 64 
