VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
239 
I spread the solution over the part of a field. I chose a piece of ground 
24 yards by 23 yards, nearly square, and a piece of ground 23 yards 
by 3 yards. I carefully sprinkled one quart of the solution. There 
were four sheep left. They had their option of other pasture, and they 
ate indiscriminately of either. Of the four sheep, two had been dipped 
and two had not. I consider that they are suffering from the effects of 
having taken arsenic, and one of them is very likely to die. 
This having concluded the evidence for the defence, 
Mr. Atherton addressed the jury on the features which, to his mind, 
it presented. They had now, he said, heard the defence which he had 
been instructed to present before them; and he thought he might 
appeal to them very confidently, whether, to the very letter, the defence 
which he had been instructed to make and to open to them had not 
been established in proof. With respect, indeed, to a great and, per¬ 
haps, most material part of the circumstances constituting that defence, 
he was entirely at a loss to understand the course his learned friend 
wished. He would allude particularly, however, to the proof which 
had been given by many persons for many years of the use of this 
identical composition, without mischief. That composition had been 
applied to upwards of 100,000 sheep without a single casualty. They 
had also established proof, most complete and distinct, of a similar 
application, with similar results, by various persons, of the other 
portions of the composition that was made in 1858, in addition to the 
fifteen powders made and sold to the plaintiff. The learned counsel also 
remarked that the plaintiff’s servants in this case appeared to have 
been inexperienced in the use of this kind of wash ; and to this he 
attributed, in a great measure, the fatal results which followed. 
Mr. Manisty replied—He would not repeat the observations he made 
in opening the case on Saturday morning, as to its importance in the 
three respects which he then mentioned. Their verdict would either 
sanction the sending forth mixtures of this character with these 
directions, or it would intimate to the chemists who supplied them that 
they must give to the parties to whom they were supplied notice of the 
danger which they ran in their application, and accompany them with 
directions which inexperienced shepherds could use and act upon so as 
to avoid these fatal results. If they were of opiniou that the directions 
in this case were substantially complied with, and were of opinion that 
nevertheless death ensued by the use of that mixture, he wanted to 
know what it was that they had not done which they ought to have 
done to entitle them to their verdict? If that mixture—be it what it 
might—was used according to the printed directions, and that he 
thought no man could for one moment doubt after the evidence, what 
was it, he had waited in vain to hear from his learned friend, that they 
had failed to do which they ought to have done? What was the real 
question raised? Not whether this was a “ reasonably fit ” mixture, 
but was it ‘‘reasonably fit” to be used according to the printed 
directions? If he used that mixture, and used it according to the 
printed directions, in the ordinary way in which farmers and shepherds 
would use it, and the results which had been spoken of to have followed, 
he contended that the mixture was not “ reasonably fit” for the purpose 
for which it was prescribed ; and that, therefore, the defendant was 
guilty of a breach of contract. 
The learned judge, in summing up, adverted at some length and 
commented upon the more salient points in the evidence. In regard to 
the matter of compensation, which had not been the subject of inquiry 
during the investigation, he observed that although the damages were 
