303 
Veterinary Jurisprudence. 
HEDON COUNTY COURT, February, 1861. 
HOR V. MATTHEWS. 
The plaintiff was a carrier residing at Hedon, and the defendant was 
an innkeeper, also living at the same place. The action was brought to 
recover £/, the value of a pony which the plaintiff alleged died in con¬ 
sequence of the improper treatment of the defendant. 
Mr. Park appeared on behalf of the plaintiff, and Mr. Watson for the 
defendant. 
It appeared from the evidence of the plaintiff that on the morning of 
the 16th of October last the defendant, without his knowledge or leave, 
took his pony and drove it in a light cart to Hull and back, a distance 
of ten miles; that on the defendant’s return in the evening, his groom 
took the pony out of the cart and rode it into a pond for the purpose of 
washing its legs (when it probably drank a quantity of cold water, but 
this was not clearly proved by the evidence), and afterwards gave it a 
feed of barley, a species of food to which the pony was not accustomed. The 
pony soon afterwards began to exhibit symptoms of great pain, by 
rolling about in the stable, as if suffering from the gripes. It appeared 
that the defendant did not send for any veterinary surgeon, but adminis¬ 
tered some gin to it, and subsequently some oil. He also bled the pony 
twice. The pony, however, died on the following day. It was shown that 
on the animal being opened the intestines were inflated with gas, and 
contained much water and a quantity of whole barley. 
Mr. Henry Taylor , of Hull, veterinary surgeon, was called for the 
plaintiff, who stated that in his opinion the treatment of the pony by 
the defendant’s groom was improper, both by taking it into the horsepond 
and by giving it barley. He also gave it as his opinion that the death of 
the pony was caused by its immersion in cold water (when it would in all 
probability drink), followed by a feed of barley, not being accustomed 
to such food. 
His Honour asked Mr. Taylor’s opinion as to bleeding the pony ? 
His answer was, that it would cause the animal to die sooner. As to 
barley it was his opinion that it was one of the best friends veterinary 
surgeons had, if improperly administered, tie had known many ani¬ 
mals die from this cause, and on a post mortem-examination had found 
the stomach or intestines ruptured, not many hours after the barley was 
given. 
Mr. Watson, for the defendant, stated that the plaintiff had lent the 
defendant the pony, and that the treatment which it had received from 
him and his groom was kind and proper. He would call the defendant 
to substantiate that view of the case, and also a witness who had pre¬ 
viously owned the pony to prove that it was subject to gripes. 
Having done this, Mr. Watson asked Mr. Taylor if he approved of gin 
and linseed oil ? 
His answer was, any stimulant which was at hand might be used until 
advice could be had. The oil he had no objection to. 
Mr. Park, in reply, contended that if the defendant took the pony 
without leave, he was clearly liable for anything that should happen to 
it whilst in his custody; and that even supposing the pony had been 
