92 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
Dr. S/iapter said, Mr. Huggins had brought him some com¬ 
position, which he had analysed with Mr. Tucker. He found 
it contained ten per cent, of arsenious acid, sixty of sulphur, 
twelve of potash, and eighteen of fatty matter. The effect of 
the potash would be to form an arsenite of potash, and the fat 
was merely the vehicle. He described the corrosive effects of 
arsenic and arsenite of potash on the skin, and on abraded sur¬ 
faces, and calculated, that, supposing the composition to be 
equally diffused or dissolved in the water, and that each fleece 
absorbed two quarts, the quantity of arsenic applied to each 
would be fifty grains, which he considered enough to produce 
the symptoms described. He had analysed some of Bigg’s 
composition, which was similar to the above, but that of Mr. 
Froom was more intimately mixed, the arsenic appeared to be 
more chemically combined, and therefore likely to act more 
powerfully. 
Mr. Tucker supported this evidence. 
Mr. Edward Trood , of Exminster, had also bought Bigg’s 
composition of defendant; but in 1850 he had bought some of 
Mr. Froom’s, which the latter offered at a cheaper rate. He 
lost 45 ewes, and above 200 were injured. 
Mr. John Drew , of Peamore, had used Froom’s composition : 
his flock had suffered very much; seven died. 
Mr. John Whipped gave similar evidence. 
Several other sheep-owners made similar complaints. 
For THE Defence, it was contended (by Mr. Stogden) that 
his client was not by law responsible for the consequences ; and 
secondly, that those consequences were not referrible to the 
composition he had prepared. The composition had been sold 
for the avowed purpose of destroying animal life, namely, the 
vermin on the body of the sheep. Its dangerous properties were 
known and properly represented, and precautions given accord¬ 
ingly, but no warranty. It had been used successfully, and 
without injury, in numerous cases, as he should prove in evi¬ 
dence. As to the second point, he maintained, that the mischief 
which had occurred was the result of carelessness on the part of 
the operators, or deviation in some important particular from 
the instructions. In some instances, sixty sheep and upwards 
were dipped within the hour, which did not allow time for 
washing off the adhering liquor—thirty or forty being the max¬ 
imum number, according to the instructions. Flannel, stockings, 
or linen rags had been used, instead of sponge, for wiping them, 
and these substances being less absorbent, did not remove the 
liquid effectually. Some of the parties had continued adding 
fresh portions of the composition to the liquor, instead of making 
