116 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
after. Saw the carcase subsequently in the horse slaughterer's yard. 
Found a slight congestion of the lungs, rupture of the diaphragm, and 
ulceration of the stomach. The latter could be produced by stimulating 
agents, and might show itself in a few hours. Over-driving might pro¬ 
duce rupture and congestion. Should expect a horse suffering from 
congestion to be blowing hard. 
Cross-examined.—There was only slight congestion, the apex of the 
lungs just tinged. That would not cause blowing to an excessive de¬ 
gree. Violence of any kind, either before or after death, would pro¬ 
duce the rupture—such violence as shunting oT a cart after death. 
The intestines protruding through the ruptured diaphragm and press¬ 
ing on the lungs might produce congestion, though he did not mean 
to say it was so in this case. Did not think the rupture and congestion 
were the cause of death. There was considerable inflammation of the 
mucous membrane of the stomach, and this must have produced con¬ 
siderable ill to the pony. If poisonous or other foreign substances 
had been introduced they might have caused death. It appeared most 
likely, to his mind, that the pony died from this cause. If the pony 
had been driven to death, the air-cells of the lungs would have been full 
of stagnant blood. 
Re-examined.—Was asked at first if the pony was poisoned, but 
would not give an opinion. Recommended them to get the stomach 
analysed. Did not discover the presence of poison. Thought a pony 
could travel seventy miles with poison rankling within it. Pledged his 
opinion that this was practicable. Could not say if it was mineral or 
vegetable poison. Rupture and congestion would not be sufficient to 
cause death. (Upon the question being repeated, witness said they 
would be sufficient.) Did not come to any conclusion as to the cause 
of death. Thought at the time it was congestion and rupture; both 
were the probable consequences of over-driving. Had been accustomed 
to horses a long time, and did not think seventy miles in ten hours an 
extraordinary feat, even deducting two hours for stoppages. Should say 
it was moderate driving. 
Thomas Lewis, ostler to previous witness, proved that the pony was 
taken from his master’s stable. 
John Vinmlle , horse slaughterer, stated that he opened the carcase, 
and found the symptoms described by Mr. Unsworth. The diaphragm 
was hardly ruptured. Frequently this took place after a horse had 
been dead several hours. Could swear the rupture in this case took 
place after death. There was very little congestion. The pony must 
have died when it did, whether driven or not; that was a certainty. 
Could not say why he was certain the pony must have died on that 
particular day. 
Mr. May hew said that was the case, and the bench would see the 
difficulties he had had to contend with. 
Mr. Cobbett contended there was no case for the magistrates to con¬ 
sider. The surgeon called by the prosecution said the driving was 
nothing extraordinary. It was contended the distance was too great, 
but not a single question had been asked on that point by the prose¬ 
cution. 
Mr. IValker observed that there must have been something extra¬ 
ordinary, or no bet would have been made. 
Mr. Cobbett replied that this remark, if it would hold on this case, 
would equally apply to horse-racing. A man had a right to drive what 
distauce he pleased, and in as short a time as he pleased, unless it 
could be established that such driving amounted to cruelty, and he 
