224 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
promised that the mixture should be reasonable, fit and proper for the 
purpose, according to the directions; and it then averred that the mix¬ 
ture was not reasonable, fit, and proper, and that after dipping the 
sheep a great number died. 
Mr. Manisty adverted to its importance as a question affecting the 
public, and proceeded to state the details. The plaintiff was a farmer, 
and had two large farms—one, the scene of the calamity he was about 
to describe to them, was called Burton, and was about three miles from 
the Lockhart Station on the North-Eastern Railway. This was a farm 
of about one thousand acres. He also farmed another farm at New 
Heaton. It would not be necessary, however, to call the attention of 
the jury to that farm. He merely mentioned it as being the place 
where the plaintiff resided, and the other one in question being a farm 
which was formerly occupied by his son-in-law, Mr. Brown, and to 
which Mr. Black succeeded in May, 1858, Mr. Brown had occupied 
that farm for some years. He had taken especial pains to get an ex¬ 
tremely fine stock of sheep, and he believed in this he had perfectly 
succeeded. He was not able to carry on that farm; and Mr. Black, the 
plaintiff, purchased, with the farm, nearly all the stock, and between 
800 and 900 sheep. Now, many of them would know better than he 
could state, that there had for long been a practice, at a certain time 
of the year, of dipping the sheep for the purpose, he was told, of 
killing the vermin, and cleansing the skin and wool. Of late it ap¬ 
peared that this practice consisted in dipping the sheep in a mixture 
prepared for the purpose, in which the sheep, with the exception of the 
head, were immersed. It was done with great rapidity, and in the pro¬ 
cess there were two men employed to wring the mixture out of the 
wool, and let it drop down into a vessel. In this case they would find 
that instead of one set of dippers, there were two sets of dippers, so 
that the sheep, having been dipped by two shepherds, passed to two 
other men, who drained them as far as possible, and after standing in a 
shed for a considerable time, they were taken back to their respective 
fields. The dipping itself was done by the two shepherds—the head 
shepherd and the under shepherd; the head one being a most expe¬ 
rienced man, and the under one also well qualified to do the work. 
Now, in the month of August, 1858, there being at that time about 
869 sheep, some of which were sent from the other farm. Mr. Brown, 
the plaintiff’s son-in-law, was the manager on the farm—Mr. Black 
going from time to time simply to see how matters were conducted. 
Mr. Brown spoke to Mr. Black about getting proper materials for 
having the sheep dipped early in August, that being the usual time. 
Mr. Black undertook to give the order for the stuff that was to be used ; 
and having seen advertisements in the Berwick papers, he proceeded to 
the shop of the defendant, Mr. Elliott, who was a chemist and druggist 
in Berwick-on-Tweed. He asked for Mr. Elliott. He was told that 
Mr. Elliott was not at home; but one of the young men who attended 
to his business was there, and he took the order. Mr, Black told him 
he wanted some stuff for dipping sheep, and the young man said they 
could furnish it; they professed, in fact, to sell a superior dipping 
mixture. Mr. Black, perfectly unconscious of the ingredients, and 
not, of course, for a moment taking upon himself to give any specific 
order as to how the stuff’ should be composed, he told him that he 
wanted stuff to dip about thirty-five score of sheep. That, they knew, 
would be 790. The young man said that fourteen packages would be 
required for that. Mr. Black said there might be some other sheep 
sent—they might have a few more to dip—and he had therefore better 
