VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE IN SCOTLAND. 489 
condescended to point out wherein the fallacy of the evidence 
he alludes to consisted. This he does in regard to one point 
in a rather ambiguous manner. In his concluding sentence, 
speaking about the disease being visible at the time of sale, 
he says, “ Now as to this the case is a blank. The two far¬ 
riers are asked a question which touches the point, but they 
do not give a satisfactory answer.” On referring to the 
evidence of the “ two farriers,” as the Sheriff learnedly calls 
them, we find the following question, which is likely what he 
refers to, asked ,“ If such an abscess could have been de¬ 
tected in a cow wdiich was apparently healthy and eating her 
food/’ The one depones ,“ It would have been very difficult 
to do it.” The other,I do not think it.” What plainer 
statement could have been given than this; that according 
to the knowdedge of these individuals the disease could not 
have been discovered ? Perhaps the Sheriff would have liked 
a positive “ it could notbut such, however satisfactory it 
might be for a judge to have it to direct a decision by, is not 
in many points as yet attainable in matters physiological. 
We believe it would be difficult to find on record a case 
similar to the one we have been animadverting on, where the 
concurrent, unconcerted, and uncontradicted testimony of 
two independent witnesses touching matters specially within 
the sphere of their professions, is set aside without any 
cause being assigned except the SherifFs idea of their 
want of experience, in other words, their incompetence. We 
willingly acquit the Sheriff of any wish to hurt the in¬ 
dividuals in question (as it is likely neither of them is 
personally knowm to him), although the results of this mis¬ 
statement of their evidence is well calculated to do so; but 
we cannot acquit him of an attempt, manifested throughout the 
entire tenor of his note, to run down their profession ; an at¬ 
tempt equally uncalled for on the one part, and unbecoming on 
the other. What would be thought of the judge wffio, in a 
plain, proved, and uncontradicted case of murder, should 
direct the acquittal of the murderer because one of the doc¬ 
tors w'ho had examined the body of the killed had only been 
a certain number of years in practice ? It may be said that 
such would be a cause of much more serious importance : 
true, but ought not justice to be the same whatever is the 
relative importance of the cases at issue ? And ought not 
men to be accounted honest and competent for their profes¬ 
sions so long as they are not proved, or at least generally 
suspected, to be otherwise ? The Sheriff of Aberdeen has 
ruled it differently; and as far as the value of this decision 
goes, we of the veterinary profession must submit to his gra- 
