686 
Veterinary Jurisprudence. 
KINGSTON COUNTY COURT.— September 24th. 
(Before J. F. Fraser, Esq., Judge.) 
INJURY TO A MARE AT A LIVERY STABLE. 
LAXTON V. PAXTON. 
Claim, £10, for injury done to a mare and damage sustained therefrom. 
—Mr. Haynes appeared for the defendant, and Mr. Pratt, from the 
office of Batt and Son, solicitors, attended for the plaintiff. 
The plaintiff said, that he put his mare up at defendant’s stable on the 
13th of July last, the day of the volunteer review; and he engaged 
with the ostler to put her in a stall by herself, as he wished to feed her. 
When he went for his mare he found her placed in a coach-house, and 
when brought out she was injured in the off fore leg, and he was not 
able to drive her away, and the defendant sent him and his family home 
in a brougham. The mare was put under the care of Mr. Cheeseman, 
who charged £3 14s. 6r/. for his attendance, and in consequence of the 
injuries the animal had sustained, he had been deprived of its services. 
His whip had also been lost, and he considered that, altogether, the 
amount ofloss he had experienced was £10. 
Cross-examined.—Did not say the mare was nervous. It was not a 
very fast mare. It had not shied with him. It had a scar on its leg, which 
was quite perceptible, and would determine its value. Told the defend¬ 
ant he should expect compensation; asked him for £10, but said that 
he would be satisfied with the surgeon’s bill, the loss of the whip, and 
2 5s. for the expense he had been put to for having conveyances for 
his use. 
Mr. Cheeseman , veterinary surgeon, was called to prove the injury 
done to the mare, and that his claim was £3 14s. 6(/., for medical treat¬ 
ment and keep. The injury was very slight, and would not injure the 
value of the animal if it was about to be sold. 
Mr. Haynes addressed the Court, and said that the mare had not been 
injured by a kick from a horse, but that it had been alarmed by the 
noise of one of the bands playing, and it ran back and pulled down a 
part of the manger, and the damage to the animal arose from that fact; 
and it was a circumstance strongly in the defendant’s favour that he had 
done all he could to have the mare properly attended to, and he did not 
consider himself liable for anything more, and called Robert Moss, 
defendant’s ostler, who stated he remembered plaintiff’s mare being put 
up at his employer’s stable on the 13th of July; he fed and groomed it, 
and put it in the stable with a proper head-collar on, with two ropes 
from the head through two rings to the manger. There were swinging 
bales between each horse, but not a separate stall. It would be im¬ 
possible for a horse to kick over the bale, as they were more than four 
feet from the ground. The mare was very fidgetty in the stable, and 
excited from the noise occasioned by the band, which caused it to run 
back, and it pulled off the top of the manger; called his master, who 
took away the mare and placed it in the coach-house for safety. It was 
in a very nervous state. It was not touched by another horse. He saw, 
