484 VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE IN SCOTLAND. 
of disease. It may have been constitutionally lean. It was 
bought by experienced persons, a cattle driver and the pur¬ 
suer himself, who is a veterinary surgeon. It stood the 
journey to Aberdeen well, there were no symptoms of diffi¬ 
culty of breathing then. It calved sometime afterwards 
easily, and made a good recovery. It continued apparently 
well, for at least six weeks after calving, and then, for the first 
time, its appetite began to fail, and symptoms of bad health 
appeared. The animal was doctored by the pursuer himself. 
It is said there was some difficulty in breathing, and there 
was a swelling in the belly and chest, which was lanced 
several times by the pursuer; and after treatment by the 
pursuer, death ensued about the 10th day of April. 
The evidence of the alleged fact, that the abscess, said to 
have been for the first time discovered after death, was in 
existence at the time of the sale, consists of the opinions of 
the two farriers selected by the pursuer, without any intima¬ 
tion to the defender. They saw on the day, or the second 
day after the cow’s death, what they were told was the heart 
and abscess taken out of the cow’s body. These two persons 
are not of great experience ; one of them has practised only 
since 1846. They say, the disease is a very uncommon one. 
Neither of them say they ever saw' it before. Skea says, the 
abscess may have existed for a year, or may be less. Cuming 
says, for at least one or two years. But the grounds of their 
knowledge or opinions are not stated. No one sees the abscess 
who can form any opinion about its age or nature, but these 
two men chosen by the pursuer. It was unquestionably 
the duty of the pursuer, if he meant to go against the defender, 
to give him notice that the body was to be dissected and 
examined, and at all events to give him an opportunity of 
seeing the heart and abscess. 
It was impossible for the defender to call witnesses as to 
the exact state and character of the disease, when neither he 
nor any one for him ever saw the diseased parts, and when 
he was never told there was anything to be seen. 
Now all that the Sheriff need say as to this evidence is, 
that it is not satisfactory to his mind, looking at all the 
circumstances. 
But, further, if it were thoroughly proved, that the abscess 
was in existence at the time of the sale, is it proved that the 
disease was then latent ? If it was of great size, was it not 
then visible, and ought it not then to have been seen ? And 
was it not seen, particularly by a person like the pursuer, who 
is a veterinary surgeon ? Now, as to this, the case is a blank. 
The two farriers are asked a question which touches the 
point, but they do not give a satisfactory answer.—J. D. 
