VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
623 
judgment those corns had been produced by bad shoeing. They were 
of recent standing—possibly some weeks, but not so far back as the 
2/th of February. He examined her again last Thursday, and he then 
found that the corns had entirely disappeared. Both her fore feet were 
of the same size precisely. He had examined her a third time this 
morning, and in his judgment she was perfectly sound and free from 
lameness of any kind. A corn might be produced in forty-eight hours, 
or perhaps in less time. Tight shoeing would produce a corn very 
quickly. She had been subjected this morning to a very severe 
examination, and certainly if she had any symptoms of lameness 
about her they must have shown themselves. The mare’s action, in his 
judgment, was perfectly natural and perfectly even. There was nothing- 
in the appearance of this horse which would lead him to the inference 
that she had ever been lame, and there was certainly no appearance of 
unsoundness. He could not say that she was sound on the 2/th 
February, as she might at that time have been suffering from some 
temporary lameness, the effects of which might now have entirely dis¬ 
appeared. What he meant to say was, that her present appearance 
bore no indication of her having suffered from any chronic disorder. 
He did not agree with Professor Spooner in stating the brittleness of 
the mare’s hoofs to be hereditary and constitutional; or in this case in 
looking upon it as a cause of unsoundness. She certainly had some¬ 
what brittle hoofs, but not to cause those results spoken of by Professor 
Spooner. 
Mr. Lawson , veterinary surgeon, of Manchester; Mr. Edward Cole¬ 
man Dray, veterinary surgeon, of Leeds; and Mr. Mather , veterinary 
surgeon, of Doncaster, were then called, and all corroborated Mr. 
Cartledge’s view of the matter. 
Mr. Whitfield then replied upon the evidence adduced by Mr. Smith, 
and in doing so pointed out the fact that whilst all the medical witnesses 
on the part of the defence had spoken to the present soundness of the 
mare, and the total absence of indications of her having been unsound, 
yet not one of them had ventured to deny, but had all admitted, that 
she might at the time of her purchase by the plaintiff have been unsound 
from some temporary cause or other. Thus the case resolved itself into a 
nutshell, as it were. He had told them that, in a legal point of view, if 
the mare was unsound at the time she was warranted, that however 
sound she might afterwards become, the fact of her being unsound at 
the time of purchase was sufficient to justify an action for breach of 
warranty. That this was so in the present case must be apparent to 
them all, and therefore he hoped they would award his client that 
fair and reasonable amount of compensation to which he was entitled. 
His Honour then briefly summed up the whole case, dwelling upon 
the conflicting evidence given by the medical men who had been called, 
and pointing out the fact that the three boys, who defendant had stated 
groomed his horses, and who could have spoken to the question of this 
mare’s lameness, had not been called. 
The jury, after a few minutes’ consultation, returned a verdict for the 
defendant. 
Mr. Smith applied for certain costs, which were allowed. 
Mr. Whitfield then stated that the verdict of the jury was so contrary 
to the evidence adduced, that he was induced to ask His Honour to 
grant them a new trial. 
His Honour replied that it was quite impossible for him to say 
whether the jury, upon the evidence, had come to a just or erroneous 
conclusion. They had had a great deal of conflicting testimony to deal 
with 3 he must refuse the application.— The Doncaster Chronicle. 
