245 
Veterinary Jurisprudence. 
COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Feb. 1. 
(,Sittings at Nisi Priiis , at Westminster , before Mr. Baron Martin and a 
Special Jury.) 
COMMMERRELL V. STEVENS. 
Veterinary Surgeons ’ Liabilities. 
Mr. Quain and Mr. Mathew were counsel for the plaintiff; Mr. Ma¬ 
caulay, Q.C., and Mr. Griffits for the defendant. 
This was an action brought to recover damages for negligence, by 
which means a horse was seriously injured in the eye, and deteriorated 
in value. The plaintiff is the widow of the late Air. Commerrell, and 
resides at Strood-park, near Horsham. The defendant is a veterinary 
surgeon and farrier, carrying on business in Park-lane. In the summer 
of last year the plaintiff’s coachman took a brougham horse, for which 
his mistress had some time before given Mr. Quartermaine, of Picca¬ 
dilly, £100, to be shod at the plaintiff’s forge, tying him up to a ring in 
the forge, the men requesting him not to wait, and promising to bring 
the horse home when done. A sufficient time having elapsed, and the 
horse not being forthcoming, the coachman went to look after him, and 
found the defendant’s servants bathing his right eye, which appeared to 
have been very badly injured. The defendant’s assistant wrote to the 
plaintiff, telling her the nature of the injury, and promising to do all 
that could be done for the horse; however, the horse was subsequently 
sent to Mr. Mavor, the veterinary surgeon, who used all his skill to 
cure him, but nothing could be done with the eye, as something had 
broken the outer coating of the ball of it, causing a quantity of the 
humour to escape. Air. Mavor told Airs. Commerrell that the sight 
was irretrievably gone, when the horse was sent back to Tattersall’s, 
and sold for 40 guineas, Mr. Alavor charging altogether £11 7s. 6d. It 
was said that the hook to which the animal had been fastened when at 
the forge projected three inches from the wall and was six feet from 
the ground, both of which circumstances made the hook dangerous to 
horses when tied up to it for shoeing purposes. This was the plaintiff’s 
case. 
On the part of the defence, it was proved that the forge was in the 
same state that it had been ever since the year 1822, and one or two 
veterinary surgeons swore that it was possible for the eye, after receiving 
such an injury as had been described, to get well, and have the sight 
perfect again. How the horse really met with the accident did not 
appear, but the supposition was that he had thrown his head up and 
knocked his eye against the lower part of the hook through which a 
ring passed, or that he had jumped forward for some reason or another. 
The men engaged in shoeing the horse, both of whom are now out of 
the defendant’s employment, were called, and swore that he was 
generally very restive and hung back, when it became necessary to 
drive or frighten him forward to prevent the halter from breaking; 
that upon the occasion when the injury to the eye was discovered by 
one of them, they had struck him on the quarter, the one with the 
flat side of a hammer, and the other with a twitch-stick, in order to 
send him forward; and that one of them went to fit a shoe on to his off 
fore foot, and saw the eye was injured. 
xxxiv. 18 
