490 VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE IN SCOTLAND. 
tuitous insult; but we can, and do, and will most emphati¬ 
cally protest against his misquoting our statements, and 
then making his own gloss a pretext for our disparagement. 
We have already disclaimed being skilled in points of law; 
but, in order that our readers may judge of the competence 
of Sheriff Davidson’s decision, we quote the two following 
cases, as being those which, in their material points, bear the 
closest resemblance to the one under review 7 of any we have 
met with in a rather extensive course of search on the 
subject. 
The first is that of Blackw r ood v. Wright, 22d February, 
1833. The facts of this case are as follows :—The pursuer 
(Blackwood), commissioned his friend Fergusson to buy 
from the defendant (Wright) the animal in question, which 
was at that time out of condition, but which Wright asserted 
w r as sound and healthy. Within a few 7 days after the pur¬ 
chase it w r as observed that the horse could not get dung 
but in small quantities and w ith difficulty, that he did not 
feed well, and w r as not in such spirits as young horses gene¬ 
rally are. About three w 7 eeks afterwards he was again 
umvell, but next day got better, and on the following day he 
again became ill, and two days after he died. He was 
attended while ill by a blacksmith, who bled him and gave 
him some laudanum and nitre, believing him to be affected 
with gripes, but having no conception of the true nature of 
his complaint; he also had a bottle of castor oil prescribed 
by another farrier, who had not at that time seen him. Soon 
after the death of the horse, a dissection of him took place 
in the presence of the two farriers, the pursuer, another 
individual, and some of the pursuer’s servants. These par¬ 
ties were none of them qualified by education to give an 
opinion as to the scientific points of the ailment of the horse, 
but were accepted as witnesses on matters of fact. They 
described a growth being found in the lungs, and also that 
the guts were growm to the back. 
On the trial, Professor Dick and Mr. Henderson, Veterinary 
Surgeon, Edinburgh, were examined, with a view to overthrow 
the evidence of the farriers, but without effect. And in a com¬ 
munication to ‘The Veterinarian,’ a short time afterwards. 
Professor Dick remarks that there seemed some reason to 
suppose that the farriers had mistaken the pancreas for a 
diseased tumour; at all events their account w r as not a very 
intelligent one: but the judges decided, I now 7 think, in the 
only w r ay they could, namely, that as the farriers swore to a 
matter of fact, that testimony was not to be overturned by 
the hypothesis of any one, whatever their experience or 
