672 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. Cannot this 
be effected ? Surely it might; since it would operate as an 
incentive to our further recognition as a corporate body. 
Was not this the time for the Principal Veterinary Surgeon 
to the Army to have made a stand for the dignity of his pro¬ 
fession ? By so doing he would have gained immortal honours. 
Again, I remember having heard or read, that the obtain- 
ment of the rank of a commissioned officer for the veterinary 
surgeon was not wholly due to the late Professor Coleman; 
still, I do know, that he rejoiced in the position his pupils 
had acquired. However, let this pass; there are those 
who can speak more definitely on this head than I can. I 
would not be thought to indulge in censure where there was 
so much to praise. I came away much pleased, breathing a 
sincere wish for a long continuance of what I had witnessed, 
and increased prosperity to the parent institution and all 
connected with it. 
Since my time there have been many improvements made 
both in the studies of the pupils and for their accommoda¬ 
tion, and others, I have no doubt, will follow. To stand still, 
it has been observed by you, is to retrograde. Let this not 
be our state. Nor have I any fear that it will, from what 
I know of those who are at the helm of affairs. 
Thus have I given vent to my feelings, in which, doubtless, 
many others participated. Should they not have expressed 
themselves in a better way than I have done, perhaps you 
will give place to this in your journal, or, rather, our 
journal, since it has been well said by you, it is “ what we 
make it.” 
Believe me. 
Yours sincerely, 
“Amicus.” 
To the Editors of the ‘ Veterinarian 
October 25, 1859. 
Veterinary Jurisprudence. 
t 
UNSOUNDNESS OF A COW.—DURATION OF DISEASE 
WITHOUT DETECTION. 
Bristol County Court, 23d June 1859. 
PARRY V. EDWARDS. 
A Jury was sworn to try this action, instituted to regain the price 
paid fora cow, purchased by the plaintiff, a dairyman, of the defendant, a 
farmer, under a warranty of soundness, although, as was alleged, 
suffering from disease, of which it died. The plaintiff also claimed to re- 
