VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE IN SCOTLAND. 487 
particular case that was not specially brought out in the 
evidence. The decision of the case. Smith v. Rainnie, intro¬ 
duces a different rule, (whether right or wrong, we do not 
inquire,) namely, that everything is to be doubted that is 
stated in evidence, and everything believed that is asserted 
without proof. It is, therefore, of consequence to be known, 
for the benefit of all who may find themselves in the dis¬ 
agreeable position of having sold their neighbour an unsound 
instead of a sound animal, that they have only to absent 
themselves from the examination of the unsoundness, when 
called to see it, and to deny - and they will be assoilized from 
the consequences. 
With regard to the treatment given by the Sheriff of 
Aberdeen to veterinary witnesses, as instanced in the case 
of Smith v. Rainnie, every member of the profession has 
grievous cause of complaint. Why call us, and examine us 
at all, if our sworn and uncontradicted testimony is not to 
be received ? In no other profession would such treatment 
be submitted to, unless the honesty of the parties examined 
could be impeached, or their knowledge doubted. Yet the 
poor veterinarian must submit to be sneered at by a man so 
palpably ignorant of all that relates to the subject at issue, 
as to speak of an enlargement attached to the right side of 
the heart of a cow, and consequently lying between the two 
anterior lobes of the lungs, being seen outside. 
The Sheriff, when determined to swamp the veterinary 
testimony in one lump, might, at least, have refrained from 
misstating any particular portion of it; but even this it seems 
impossible for him to do : witness the following extracts 
from this note, and from the evidence before him in process : 
After speaking in his note of 
the veterinary evidence regard¬ 
ing the length of time the abscess 
had been in existence, the Sheriff 
says, “But the grounds of their 
knowledge or opinions are not 
stated,” &c. 
A reference to the abstract of 
evidence which we have given 
above, will show, in regard to one 
of the opinions at least, the fol¬ 
lowing:—“Judging from the 
quantity of matter in the cyst, 
the extent and thickness of its 
walls, its being situated exterior 
to the pericardium, and the ne¬ 
cessary slow growth of such 
collections, I am of opinion,” &c. 
H ere are at least four reasons for the opinion given, and 
reasons, too, based on a knowledge of the nature ofsuch col¬ 
lections as the one in question. To the mind of the physio¬ 
logist they suggest such ideas as the following :—First, “ the 
