486 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
should be killed. In cross-examination he stated, that he gave £13 for 
the horse, two days before he sold it to the plaintiff’. 
The daughter of the defendant, and Thomas Oram, in the employ of 
the latter, both proved hearing the defendant object to give a warranty. 
Mr. Weller, livery-stable keeper, who introduced the defendant to 
plaintiff, stated that the horse was in his stable ; that there was no sign 
of any disease about the horse when it was sold, and that the disease 
from which it was subsequently suffering was merely a skin eruption. 
He saw the horse when it was going to be shot, and thought there was 
no reason at all for killing it. He had had many horses in a worse 
state cured by proper treatment. It was high living that led to the 
breaking out. Had the horse been afflicted with farcy it would have 
communicated the contagion to the other horses in the same stable. 
Thomas Coller, examined—I am a farrier. I knew the pony in ques¬ 
tion at the time it was sold to Powell. I saw nothing the matter with it, 
except that it was in poor condition. Mr. Nunes’ groom asked me to 
look at the pony; Mr, Nunes was present. I said I thought it was 
brought on by high living. I have not seen many cases of farcy. I 
gave the horse physic—it acted well. I saw the horse a day or two 
after. I saw ulcers on the head and thigh. I saw the horse on the 
12th of May with Mr. Barker. I did not think it farcied, neither did 
Mr. Barker. I think it might have been cured. On the 12th May I 
saw Mr. Slack, and showed him Mr. Barker’s certificate. 
Cross-examined—I observed a bog spavin on the horse’s leg. I have 
not been in business four years. I never had a farcied horse to attend 
to during that time. I did not say in the presence of Loves and Snell 
that this horse had a slight touch of farcy. 
Mr. Barker, examined—I am a veterinary surgeon of Bath. I was 
requested the night before the 12th May to examine the pony. I found 
the horse in very low condition, but his eyes and skin looked well and 
there was no running at the nose. There was a sore on the off side of 
the head and one on the off stifle, and several more coming. There 
was none on the inside of the thigh. I have been in Bath two years 
and a half. I have not seen many cases of farcy in Bath. I saw many 
in Birmingham. I think the sores arose from high feeding upon a poor 
condition. It was not farcy. I was told the horse had a strong dose of 
physic which drove it out of the system. I offered two sovereigns for the 
horse on spec, to cure it myself. I saw it pass by mv place the night 
it was killed. It trotted sound, I told Sargent it was a pity to kill it. 
I followed after it in a quarter of an hour. It must have been 
trotted up. I gave this certificate [certificate of Mr. Barker read, 
in which iie stated his opinion that the horse was not suffering from 
true farcy]. I saw the lungs of the horse at Sargent’s. It was nearly 
dark. Mr. Broad said, “ It is just as I expected, the horse would have 
been glandered in a few days.” Farcy may exist without diseased 
lungs. There were no tubercles, nothing but some seedy lumps. 
Cross-examined—1 have not in two years and a half seen a case of 
farcy. I w^as apprenticed at Birmingham. I w 7 as in Yorkshire three 
months—probably I did see a case of farcy there. I saw cases at 
Birmingham ; one at Mr. Page’s, Bell Street; also one at Bretherton’s, 
coach-proprietors. My master attended these cases, and I went by his 
directions. 
By Mr. Slack —What do you mean by stating in your certificate that 
this was not true farcy ? 
A. I mean not a true case. I mean some disease not farcy at all. I 
did not think the horse had farcy; The running sore below 7 the ear was 
