VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 687 
upon examining the animal, that it had received a scratch on the off fore 
leg, near the chest, to the best of his recollection. 
Mr. Laxton said, that the mare was a young one and very nervous. 
This was said when he came for the mare. 
Robert Burbidge, a gentleman’s servant, deposed- to the manner in 
which the mare was secured in the stable, and the manner in which 
it was attended to, and was quite sure that she was not injured by any 
other horse in the stable. 
Cross-examined.—I was present when the plaintiff came for his mare ; 
the bales did not injure her, but it might have been injured by the manger 
falling. 
Mr. David Paxton, the defendant, was called, and said that he was 
in the yard all day, and when the accident happened by the manger 
falling. He went in when called, and found that a portion of the manger 
was between the legs of plaintiff’s mare; he took it away, but did not 
observe that it had been injured at the time, and it was not until he 
(plaintiff) was about to leave that the discovery was made of the mare 
being lame, and (defendant) procured a light and found out where the 
injury was. When plaintiff applied for compensation, he (defendant) 
made an offer to pay the surgeon’s bill and the loss of the whip. Plaintiff 
said he should then expect to have £6 for the loss he had sustained in 
consequence of his mare being injured. Upon which he (defendant) 
said it was an imposition, and would not pay it. 
Mr. Baft having replied, His Honour said, taking the whole case into 
consideration, he thought that defendant had done all that was required 
in the matter; and the evidence adduced by him fully carried it out. 
Mr. Batt applied for a nonsuit.— His Honour said they could take a 
nonsuit if they preferred it. This was consented to ; and, upon an ap¬ 
plication made by Mr. Haynes, His Honour said he should allow de¬ 
fendant’s costs, also for attorney and witnesses. 
CHERTSEY COUNTY COURT.— Saturday, September 21st. 
{Before J. F. Fraser, Esq., Judge.) 
SHOOTING A DOG. 
PATEMAN V . CRAWFORD. 
The plaintiff, Mr. Pateman, a farmer at Chertsey. The defendant. 
Bailiff to — Noade, Esq., a gentleman of fortune, also residing at 
Chertsey. Mr. Ambrose Haynes, of Wandsworth, solicitor, appeared 
for the plaintiff, and Mr. Grazebrook for the defendant. 
Mr. Haynes, in opening the case to the jury, said his client sought to 
recover the sum of £8 from the defendant for having on the 5th instant, 
wantonly and cruelly shot the plaintiff’s dog, which, to the plaintiff in 
his business, was invaluable from its sagacity, instances of which he 
(Mr. Haynes) would bring before them. Mr. Haynes having commented 
upon the defendant’s wanton conduct in shooting such a dog, called 
Mr. Pateman, who proved that defendant admitted having shot and 
buried the dog, and said that he had orders to shoot all dogs that were 
found on his master’s premises. The plaintiff said that the dog would 
mind the sheep in the field all day, would fetch the bull or cows when 
told, would follow and catch any pig shown to him in adrove, and would 
act as a messenger to fetch up any one of his men on being told his 
name. He also related a variety of other acts which displayed an 
immense amount of intelligence in the brute, and which caused some 
