VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE IN SCOTLAND. 491 
observations might be, when they had not the opportunity of 
examining the parts themselves. 
On this case, the following is the summing-up of the Lord 
Ordinary :—Having resumed consideration of the debate 
and advised the process, Finds it established by the proof, 
that the advocator (defendant), did not offer the horse in 
question for sale, but that the respondent (plaintiff), selected 
him, and sent his friend Fergusson to purchase said horse 
for him. Finds, that the advocator upheld the horse to be 
whole and sound; and though not in high condition at the 
time, it was purchased as such on 21st November, 1829. 
Finds that the horse was delivered on the 23d to the 
respondent, and was worked moderately ; that the horse soon 
showed symptoms of being somewhat unwell, being out of 
spirits and occasionally uneasy, not feeding nor dunging 
well, and then got better; that on Saturday, the 12th of 
December, the horse was again unwell, but next day got 
better; that on Monday, the 14th, the horse again became 
ill; that Goudie, a farrier, was called, and who administered 
medicines; and, having become worse on Wednesday, 
Wright, another farrier was called, but the horse died on 
the same day. Finds, that although the veterinary surgeons 
gave it as their opinion that the horse was not very skilfully 
treated, and that more active medicines should have been 
tried, they do not say, that the better treatment would cer¬ 
tainly have saved the horse. Finds that the horse was opened 
on the same day on which he died, and it is established by 
the testimony of the two farriers and of two other witnesses, 
that there was an internal growth of a hard substance in the 
intestines, and that this was the cause of the inflammation in 
the intestines, so far as there were such symptoms, but that 
acute inflammation was not the cause of the adhesion. 
Finds it stated, as the opinion of these persons, that this 
growth was the cause of the horse’s death; and that it must 
have been the growth of some months’ duration—one of the 
witnesses says six months. Finds that both Dick and Hen¬ 
derson, the veterinary surgeons, considers the disease a very 
uncommon one, and which they profess not to understand 
from the description given : but they do not state that such 
a disease could not exist, and one of them admits that he 
has seen one instance of the kind. Finds, that these two 
witnesses, while they differ in opinion with the two farriers 
as to the cause of the death of the horse, differ also from 
each other as to the cause of the death, but finds that Dick 
depones that he would consider that a growth, such as was 
proved in this case, was caused by chronic inflammation, and 
