VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
95 
purchase it know that it is a strong poison; they know that it 
contains arsenic. Unless it contained arsenic, or some ingre¬ 
dient equally potent, they would have no faith in its efficacy. 
Whether it be right for an agent of this nature to be trusted in 
the hands of farming men, is a question which we are not now 
discussing. The question before us is, whether the chemist 
who sells it ought to be held responsible for the consequences 
of its application ? 
“ There is abundant evidence to shew that the composition 
may be applied not only without injury, but with positive 
benefit; there is also evidence of injury having resulted from 
its use in some instances. When opposite results are produced 
by the same remedy under different circumstances, and in the 
hands of different persons, it is reasonable to infer that the mode 
of application has not in all cases been the same. Who, then, 
is to blame when an accident occurs;—the man who sells the 
composition, or the man who applies it? 
“ If it had been warranted free from risk by the vendor, the 
question would have been easily answered. This, however, 
was not the case : its dangerous properties were known and 
represented, and precautions given accordingly. It has been 
argued that this is an implied warranty, subject to the observance 
of the precautions. Even if this were granted, how is positive 
and impartial evidence to be obtained? The parties who apply 
the composition are the fanners and their men; they are the 
only witnesses as to the mode of application, and, if they have 
performed their work clumsily, they are not likely to condemn 
themselves. They may even be unconscious of any deviation 
from the instructions. In the hurry and confusion of catching, 
dipping, washing, and wiping 500 or 1000 sheep, they may 
unintentionally neglect some precautions, and state that the 
work has been properly done, believing that to be the case. 
If any slight deviations be proved, it is a matter of opinion 
whether these are of any importance or not, and in the late trial 
the witnesses were at issue on this point. Some of the farmers 
who were witnesses had met with similar accidents themselves, 
and their sympathies went entirely with the plaintiff. It was, 
indeed, insinuated at the trial that they had united and shared 
the expenses, being all interested in the result. The defendant 
had no means of rebutting such testimony except by cross 
examination, as neither he, nor any witness on his side, was 
present at the dipping. 
“ Yet the verdict was given against the defendant, and he 
was made responsible for the acts of others over whom he had 
no control, on the ex parte evidence of those who performed 
the said acts. 
