THE LATE SHEEP-POISONING CASE. 
269 
the wash for fifty sheep; and of the 25,000 sheep so dipped, 
not one case of accident or misadventure was reported. The 
plaintiff had not previously used the wash, but, in con¬ 
sequence of an advertisement, purchased the materials, with 
which the usual printed directions were given, and such 
verbal information as at the time was supposed to be 
requisite and sufficient. It was proved that the dipping had 
been performed with such rapidity, namely, at the rate of 
about three sheep in two minutes, that several experienced 
farmers thought it would be scarcely possible to drain the 
fleeces effectually from the surplus fluid in the time. The 
sheep were then turned into pasture, and the drippings from 
the wool, washed by rain in the night, had contaminated the 
herbage with arsenic, which was proved by analysis to be 
present on some of the grass and sods from the field. 
“ This involved the question in still greater difficulty; for 
before trying the issue between the plaintiff and defendant, 
it was important to decide whether blame attached to either 
party, or whether the disaster was attributable to the state of 
the weather, and consequently to be considered as a misfor¬ 
tune arising from no fault. The rapidity with which the 
operation was performed naturally raises the question, 
whether due and sufficient precautions were observed in the 
process, on which considerable doubt is thrown by the 
evidence in that part of the case. It is proved that the 
same kind of composition has been used successfully for many 
years, and to a large extent, which is also confirmed by the 
experiments above referred to. No case of an accident or 
misadventure is brought forward, except on this last occasion, 
when 850 sheep died of arsenical poisoning, being nearly all 
that were dipped. * * * * In the Burton case there was 
no evidence of warrantry or of misrepresentation on the part 
of the defendant, while on the other side there were strong 
grounds for believing that the operation of dipping was 
performed with a rapidity incompatible with due care and 
precaution. Yet the jury ignored this latter circumstance, 
and threw the entire responsibility on the vendor of the 
poison. 
u Trial by jury is extolled as one of the bulwarks of our 
liberties, and its introduction as an element into our courts 
of law is revered as an important epoch in the history of 
the country. In ancient times, when sovereigns were 
habitually despotic and tyrannical, and judges no less venial 
and corrupt, the intervention of trial by jury as a safety-valve 
between the oppressors and the oppressed was an important 
step in securing to some extent the liberty of the subject. 
