94 
VETER I NARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
potash, because in Froom’s there was a larger quantity of oil or 
fat. He had made baths with a small quantity of each, using 
the same proportion of water at the same temperature. In 
Froom’s he found rather more than half a grain of arsenious 
acid in solution, in the other about a grain. Was aware that 
other compositions were used, some of which were stronger. 
Should not anticipate any bad consequences from using Froom’s 
composition according to his instructions, washing the sheep 
properly afterwards. Sponge would be better than flannel for 
wiping them. Considered the bad effects to have resulted from 
want of care in regard to the instructions given. 
Mr. Coleridge (for the plaintiff) replied. 
His Honour, after a careful and critical analysis of the 
evidence, and a due consideration of its bearings as affected by 
the law, delivered judgment as follows :—Believing that no 
care which could have been taken—using Mr. Froom’s wash 
in its full strength, and according to the directions given—could 
altogether have preserved him (the plaintiff) from a very severe 
loss, for that loss I assess the damages as follows:—For the 
eleven lambs that died, I give the sum claimed, £1 each ; for 
the ewe that died, also the sum claimed, £1..10$. : I think the 
flock sustained damage to the amount of £10; and I award 10$. 
for the farrier. The judgment, therefore, will be entered for 
the plaintiff, damages £23. 
Mr. Stogden (for the defendant) added, it having been stated 
that there had been no misrepresentation on the part of Mr. 
Froom, certainly gave him great reason to consider that a 
reconsideration of the case before another tribunal would lead 
to a different result. 
His Honour had found as a fact, that Mr. Froom stated, 
that the wash was a safe one, if used according to his direc¬ 
tions, and he had found as a fact, that it was not a safe one. 
Abridged from the Western Times. 
*** The Pharmaceutical Journal , for Jan. 1852, has the 
following judicious comments on the above case, one of high 
importance, no less to farmers and graziers than to vendors of 
horse and cattle medicines generally. 
“ The verdict in the case of Huggins versus Froom involves 
a principle which is applicable to the sale of cattle medicines 
generally. The precedent is liable to be construed, we might 
say perverted, to the injury of the chemist, whenever mischief 
arises from the injudicious use of powerful remedies sold by 
him, and applied by others. The composition sold by Mr. 
Froom is intended to destroy animal life. The farmers who 
