VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
113 
Mr. Stone. —Suppose you had been called in, what would you have 
done? Would you not have dressed it?—I should not have dressed it, 
but have told the owner that repeated dressing was unnecessary ; that 
the horse might work as usual, and, best of all, I should have prevented 
this action. 
Then what do you say to the evidence of Pearson, the farrier, who gave 
it as his opinion that the horse should have had eight days’ rest, and you 
know that he also is a witness, as you are, for the defendant ? — I say of 
Pearson that he is not a man of science, and his opinion and his evi¬ 
dence on this trial are of no value at all. 
I suppose, then, you would say it was not worth a shilling?—I say it 
was not worth a straw; that Pearson is not a man of science ; that his 
opinion rested on conjecture, and was the result of ignorance, and of 
no value whatever. 
Then what do you say of Cade ? Is he a man of science ?—I am sure 
that his exhibition here to-day is not a very bright specimen of science. 
Then now, Mr. Kent, tell me how you form such a wonderful and 
scientific opinion that the horse was not seriously injured, not having 
examined him untiitwelve months after the accident occurred? —I have 
stated that had it been seriously, that is, badly injured, I should have 
found a cicatrix, or scar, and also condensation of the cellular mem¬ 
brane underneath the skin, neither of which is the case, and I paid par¬ 
ticular attention to the evidence of the plaintiff’s witnesses. 
Mr. Stone. —Stop! what have you to do with their evidence?—Nothing 
at all. 
Mr. Edlin. —Then, Mr. Kent, you shall have to do with their evidence. 
I will give you a right. I ask you to state to the jury the evidence of 
the witnesses of my learned friend, and how you formed your opinion ? 
Mr. Stone. —Mr. Kent shall not make that statement. 
Mr. Edlin. —Mr. Kent shall. 
The Judge. —If Mr. Edlin asks Mr. Kent a question, he has a right 
to answer it. 
Mr. Edlin. —Now, Mr. Kent, answer my question. 
Mr. Kent. —I have stated how I formed my opinion on examining 
the horse. From the statement of plaintiff’s witnesses, it is clearly 
proved that the horse was not lame, that there was not any swelling of 
the part, which I am certain could not have been the case had there 
been a serious injury, nor could the horse have worked twelve miles 
into Bristol with a load of potatoes, and twenty miles out, the same day. 
Mr. Stone. —You heard Mr. Cade, who saw the horse, say that there 
was sloughing.—I did. 
Mr. Stone. —Then what do you say to that?—I say that if Mr. Cade 
be a man of science, he must have left his science behind him, and that 
no man of sense and science would have made such an assertion. 
By a Juryman. —Mr. Kent, could there have been sloughing in so 
short a time ?—No. Nor could there have been sloughing at all, unless 
caustic had been applied, as it was but a mere scratch of the skin. 
By the Judge. —Mr. Kent, had there been so serious an injury as to 
cause sloughing, I should suppose that warm-water bathing, and poultices, 
would have been necessary?—Yes, your honour, and daily attendance. 
A tincture-dressing, and cold pads, and a visit at the end of three 
weeks, would not do in a serious case. 
The Judge. —That was iriy opinion when I heard the evidence of 
Mr. Cade. 
Mr. Kent. —It would not, your honour; but from examining the horse 
and hearing the statement of Mr. Cade and others, I come to the con- 
