558 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
His Honour ruled to the contrary, and said that Mr. Lee was respon¬ 
sible. 
Cross-examination resumed.—The sheep had been brought four miles 
on foot to Petersfield; I did not engage a truck for six sheep when it 
would hold thirty; 1 was to pay so much per head; I did not see the 
sheep at Woking; I sold them at the full market value to Mr. Picknell; 
I again saw the sheep at Kingston market; I called to see Mr. Scott 
several times at the Waterloo station, but could not succeed in seeing 
him, and on the 17th of May I sent a claim in writing to the company, 
hut I did not complain to the company’s servants; I might have 
mentioned it to the porters; 1 have been told some time back by Mr. 
Scott that if I sustained any damage at any time I was to apply to him, 
and I did so ; the receipt put in is the one I received from Picknell. 
■Tames Burchett said—I am cowman in the employ of Mr. Lee, and on 
the 20th of March I went to Woking station for a cow and calf, and in 
the same truck six or eight sheep were lying in one corner of the truck ; 
the cow was loose, and had full run of the truck ; I had nothing to do 
with the sheep. 
William Laming , a driver, said—On the 21 st of March last I took six 
sheep out of a truck at the station ; 1 noticed a lot of blood about them 
and one was so bad that it could not walk; a small portion of the gut 
was hanging from that one ; I did not tell Mr. Lee or Mr. Picknell that 
the sheep were injured. 
George Picknell , butcher, said—On the 21st of March last, I purchased 
in Kingston market six sheep of Mr. Lee, at 55s. each, and they were 
sent up to my sheep-pen. On the following morning four of them were 
dead, and they were skinned; I found the skins full of holes, and their 
bellies were bruised all over and quite putrid, and I was obliged to 
send them to be buried ; I complained in the market to Mr. Lee about 
the sheep being down upon their legs, when he said that they were 
quite fresh the previous day; he afterwards paid me back the sum of 
£9 !0s. 
Mr. Worsley addressed his Honour upon the statement, and contended 
that the evidence adduced did not establish the plaintiff’s case, and 
asked for a nonsuit. 
His Honour said he certainly could not allow it, for there appeared 
every probability that the sheep had been injured by the heifer in pro¬ 
tecting her calf in the truck. 
Mr. Worsley maintained that the evidence did not justify such a con¬ 
clusion; and the company, he submitted, were not responsible for the 
damage done to the sheep. He called— 
David Armes, a porter at Woking station, who said—On the 20th of 
March last he remembered a truck arrived at that station with a cow 
and calf and six sheep ; they might have been there half an hour ; Mr. 
Lee’s man took the cow and calf away; she appeared quiet in the truck; 
1 saw no blood in the pen; I left duty at six o’clock ; the next morning 
I saw nothing the matter with the sheep ; it was quite dark at that 
time. 
Cross-examined.— I did not examine the sheep, as it was not my duty 
to do so ; when 1 took the cow and calf out, they got up on their legs 
and appeared all right. 
Thomas Cookman , an inspector at the Woking station, said that on the 
morning of the 21st of March he saw the sheep in the truck ; they got 
up and walked about the truck. Pie saw nothing the matter with them. 
By his Honour.— In some cases we put heifers, calves, and sheep 
together. Did not close!v examine the sheep. 
