VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 331 
that Mr. Wheeler had given a warranty. He would commence 
his judgment by quoting, “Who shall decide when doctors 
disagree?” It happened that a County Court Judge had to 
decide between the evidence of two skilful persons. They 
stood alike in being Members of the Royal College of Surgeons; 
one was a practitioner, the other a professor: the skill of the 
practitioner might exceed that of the professor, and the science 
of the professor might exceed that of the practitioner. He 
would take the first of them, Mr. Hooper, who deposed that he 
had attended the horse day after day from the 18th to the 25th 
of June, and he shewed day after day an inflammation of the 
lungs. He was trying whether the horse was sound on the 5th 
of June : if he found him sound, judgment would be given for 
the defendant; if the contrary, the plaintiff was entitled to 
succeed. If the plaintiff had proved an unsoundness on the 5th 
of June, it was unimportant whether the horse had been shot, 
or killed, or had continued to live. The death was important 
in one respect, because it gave Mr. Hooper an opportunity of 
looking into the chest, and he found two places of the pleura on 
one side and three on the other adhering closely together, as it 
were, a sore place having been made, nature would seek to put 
all matters right by the adhesion. He fancied it was like tying 
the lungs of the horse to the chest. The two doctors now 
began to differ; one said there were no signs of acute in¬ 
flammation, and that it must have been an old adhesion, and 
the gentleman from the College did not agree with him. Mr. 
Hooper said, that from want of symptoms of recent inflam¬ 
mation the horse must have had that disease on the 5th of 
June. Now, that was of very great weight. The principal 
remark he had to make with regard to Mr. Hooper’s evidence 
was, that it would have been better if Mr. Davis had given 
notice to either Mr. Wheeler or Mr. Hayward, previous to the 
horse’s death, that he was ill; it did not detract, however, the 
least from Mr. Hooper’s evidence. He should have thought 
that the case was clear on the part of Mr. Brown if he had not 
heard the evidence of Mr. Hooper, and Mr. Hooper would have 
been entitled to his judgment if it had not been for Mr. Brown. 
His Honour then thoroughly analysed the evidence of Mr. 
Brown. He considered the history of the horse, kept in a 
stable at night, running in an orchard in the day, kept very 
properly low, and parted with suddenly. He could not rid 
himself of all suspicion as to the cause which induced Mr. 
Hayward to part with the horse. He is sold on the 5th of 
June to Bee, and made the companion of a certain horse doing 
a certain work which required high feeding. The horse was 
put into a stable capable of ventilation, so that the horse could 
