90 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
“Leaving the case of Huggins versus Froom without further 
comment, we have to consider the probable influence of this 
precedent on future cases of a similar nature. The chief incen¬ 
tive to caution in the use of violent remedies is the consciousness 
of responsibility—the desire to escape the loss which would 
result from negligence. This motive is considerably weakened 
when the party knows that the loss, if any, will fall upon 
another. Without any dishonest intention, the sheep-dipper 
will be tempted to rely too much on the person from whom he 
has obtained the composition, and to underrate the importance 
of the part which he performs himself. 
“ The precedent being laid down that the chemist is respon¬ 
sible, and this principle applying equally to cattle medicines in 
general the use of which is attended with risk, actions may be 
brought whenever any accident occurs; and the defendant, for 
want of evidence which he has no means of obtaining, may, 
in many instances, be the sufferer, when, in fact, he is not at 
all in fault. To meet this contingency, we suggest to those 
who are in the habit of selling sheep-dipping composition, or 
other compounds of a similar nature, that they ought to protect 
themselves by an explicit declaration, stating to what extent 
they are willing to be held responsible, placing the purchaser in 
possession of the best information they can afford as to the 
precautions to be adopted, and leaving him to use his discretion 
at his own risk. 
“ There is a prudential expedient, which is highly desirable, 
if practicable;—w'e allude to the introduction of an application 
capable of effecting the desired object, without the risk which 
attends the use of arsenical compounds. We strongly suspect 
that a mixture of potash, soft soap, and sulphur, without the 
arsenic, would be attended with a good result. Such a compound 
is fatal to the itch insect and some other vermin. Whether it 
would be as efficacious as the arsenical composition or not, can 
only be ascertained by experience. So strong is the prejudice of 
the"farmers in favour of arsenic, that it would be difficult to 
persuade them to depart from their regular habit; but, after the 
numerous accidents which have occurred, it would be wise to 
make the effort. Arsenic was at one time believed to be the 
only effectual preventive against the smut in wheat. Sulphate 
of copper has been found to answer quite as well, athough many 
farmers are still wedded to arsenic.” 
