VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
557 
defendant’s groom ; George Martin, horse-breaker at Southampton 
and Chas. S. Green, M R.C.V.S., were called in evidence for defendant. 
Mr. Cox said the horse, in his opinion, was sound shortly before the 
sale, but had formerly a slight corn, which had disappeared lately; 
Hutchings never found anything the matter with him, but there was the 
stain of a corn which had gone away, but no “ seedy toe Judd (who 
had hunted the horse for two seasons with the hounds) never saw him 
lame, nor shy at anything ; Martin said the horse went quite sound, had 
no “drop ” or lameness, didn’t shy, and was quite sound now, as far as 
he knew; and Mr, Green stated that both of the fore feet were free from 
corns. This witness said, in addition, that from the point of the frog to 
the inside of the crust which forms the toe of the hoof horn had been 
cut away at the point of the toe. Such a state of things as existed 
would occur from a prick or an old “ stud” being left in the hoof, or 
from a bruise. Inflammation being set in, matter would form within 
ten days, and if not evacuated, ulceration would ensue. He should think 
something had been the matter with it for a month or six weeks from 
the time of the primary injury. He believed that the injury had resulted 
from a prick or stab. He should not call this a u seedy toe,” but an 
ulceration of the sensitive part of the toe. 
The Judge thought it was clear, from the evidence of the scientific 
witness for the plaintiff, that the “seedy toe” existed in the horse for 
many months; but he thought it was one of those cases in which the 
defendant might know nothing about it. 
Mr- Leigh .—That is part of our case. We do not believe defendant 
was aware of it, it being such a peculiar disease. 
His Honour .—I must say that the evidence for the plain tiff has been 
given very clearly and consistently. 
Verdict for the plaintiff for the full amount claimed, £23 18s. 6 d. 
KINGSTON COUNTY COURT, Tuesday, July 1 6th. 
Important to Railway Companies. 
Lee v. Tiie South Western Railway Company. 
Claim £9 10s. for four sheep alleged to have been injured through the 
negligence of defendants’ servants in their transit from Petersfield to 
Kingston-u pon-Thames. 
Mr. Worsley, barrister, appeared for the company, and Mr. W. 
Phillips , of Kingston, for the plaintiff. 
The plaintiff was called, and said, I am a cattle salesman residing at 
Woking, and on the 20th of March last 1 sent six sheep from Peters¬ 
field : I also purchased the same day an Alderney heifer and calf, to be for¬ 
warded to Woking station ; J saw the sheep brought into the station at 
Petersfield ; they were then perfectly sound, and on the following day the 
sheep were sold at 55$. each to Mr. Picknell, at Kingston market ; they 
were placed in a pen, and when there they appeared very much ex¬ 
hausted ; I afterwards had to refund Mr. Picknell the sum of £9 10$., 
less the amount of £1 10$. for the skins. 
Cross-examined. — The sheep were consigned to me for sale by Mr. T. 
Lintot, of Reigate, at Kingston market, and I received a commission 
for the sale. 
Mr Worsley suggested that the case was closed ; that the property 
was Mr. Lintot’s. 
XXXIV. 
42 
