VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
7 43 
discoloured and thread-worms in them. He had never seen other than 
marsh lambs in such a state before. He had had about 300 before from 
Mr. Stanbridge, and they were marsh lambs, and 98 out of the 300 died 
of the same disease. He was, however, paid for them. He subsequently 
examined the lungs of others of the sheep, and found them even in a 
worse state of disease. He accordingly communicated with Mr. Stan- 
bridge, and afterwards with Mr. Rigden. Mr. Stanbridge said he must 
do the best he could with them, and that he did not believe they had 
that disease. The sheep continued to die, and lie again wrote to Mr. 
Stanbridge requesting him to consult with Mr. Rigden. He received a 
letter from Mr. Stanbridge on the 23d of November, 1859, expressing 
great surprise, and stating that they came from Dorking and were first- 
rate lambs. He again communicated with Mr. Stanbridge, and about the 
beginning of the present year he received a letter from Mr. Rigden, who 
was not able to come and see them, but recommended changing the 
lambs from one part of the farm to the other. He (plaintiff) did the 
best he could by changing their food after this letter, but without any 
beneficial effect. Subsequently Mr. Rigden waited upon him, when be 
(plaintiff) requested him to take the lambs away. The defendant treated 
the matter very lightly, and wanted him to take the lambs, which he 
(plaintiff’) declined. Mr. Rigden then left without making any arrange¬ 
ment, except that he said he should not pay for their keep. Plaintiff 
afterwards let his farm to Mr. Wedgwood, of London, and left on the 
1st of March. Mr. Wedgwood paid him for the keep of the lambs on 
the farm when he took possession, but plaintiff had afterwards been 
obliged to refund the money. He had consequently commenced an 
action in the Croydon County Court against the defendant, who had 
removed it to this court. 
Cross-examined.—Was now a dairyman in High Street, Iloxton. 
Left his farm because it did not answer his purpose to keep it on. The 
lambs certainly would not answer the description of being the best of 
their kind. He did not recollect the date he first complained to either 
Mr. Stanbridge or Mr. Rigden about the lambs, he thought eight lambs 
were dead when Mr. Stanbridge first called upon him, but he could 
not say the date; had only seen Mr. Stanbridge three times during the 
seven months. Mr. Stanbridge had told him not to put the lambs too 
much on the common ; he never complained of the lambs not having 
sufficient hay. Mr. Stanbridge had complained in January that he was 
starving the lambs, and he (plaintiff) replied that they should have 
whatever Mr. Stanbridge liked to recommend ; the latter had never said 
they should have some hay ; he (plaintiff) had never told his shepherd 
not to give the lambs any hay. Those drafted out had all the hay they 
liked to eat. When Mr. Rigden called upon him with a witness in Januarv 
last, he found the lambs on Hamsey Common. Did not remember 
that he complained of their being on the common. When Mr. Rigden 
called in February, he (plaintiff') was not at home. The shepherd had 
informed him that defendant had complained of the lambs being starved. 
He should think fully three fourths of the lambs that died had worms. 
Did not know whether worms were brought on by bad feeding, or bad 
folding, but believed they were peculiar to those sheep bred on marshes. 
The number received was 180, and 120 were returned, as he heard. 
Had received two letters from Mr. Rigden—one directly, the other in¬ 
directly. Had received no other letter. 
Thomas Field, shepherd of fifty years’ standing, stated that he had 
for upwards of forty years been employed as shepherd at Warlington 
Court, and understood the management of sheep. He was employed by 
