674 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
In cross-examination, the witness said—The adhesion to the ribs 
might have coine on by an attack of inflammation. Cows will be as fat 
with the disease as without it; but sometimes they lose their flesh. 
The person used to milking the cow might not have discovered its ill¬ 
ness until she had been actually dying. The pleura was pale, and free 
from inflammation. 
Mr. Kent produced preserved parts of the lungs, and the pleura. 
These he compared with a portion of a healtliv lung, and lucidly pointed 
out the appearances and ravages of “ the enemy,” which afforded con¬ 
vincing proof that it had taken a strong hold in the former. 
It appeared from the evidence (of which we can give but barely an 
outline) that the defendant had been invited to examine the cow before 
death, and afterwards to send a veterinary surgeon to the post-mortem 
examination, but did not do so. 
The defendant’s counsel averred a warranty had been given, condi¬ 
tionally; that the animal should be returned in six days, if not approved ; 
and contended that, inasmuch as the plaintiff did not send it back before 
the expiration of the limited period, he had no cause of action ; but, 
should the jury find an absolute warranty had been given, the defendant 
would be equally entitled to a verdict, because it would be established 
that the cow died from inflammation which had come on after her sale 
to the plaintiff—most probably through being taken from the fields 
and suddenly placed in a shed where another cow had recently died of 
a contagious disease. He also argued that the guinea paid to Air. Kent 
was not recoverable. 
The defendant deposed that he had had the cow in question six years, 
and had five calves from her. When he sold her, he agreed to take her 
back in a week, if she was not approved. She had always been a good 
milker, and had never ailed at all; on the contrary, she was the healthiest 
he ever had. She was grazed on good land, and fed on grass. It would 
injure the health of a cow to have taken her from grass and confine her 
in house. 
In cross-examination, the witness admitted that he did not inform the 
plaintiff how the animal had been kept. 
Mrs. Edwards said the cow had never shown any symptoms of illness. 
Alfred Bush gave similar testimony, and added that she had been fed 
with hay twice a day. 
Mr. John Butt, of Backwell, described himself as a cattle doctor of 
thirty or forty years standing, and said, he saw the dead body on 15th 
April, and examined it. He took away portions of the liver and lungs; 
the latter were highly inflamed. In his opinion the disease had not 
existed more than four or five days. There certainly were no tubercles 
on the lungs. The inflammation was acute. The liver was slightly 
u swelled.” The cow may have died through infection received from 
being placed where another had died. 
By Mr. Stone —When I saw the cow a slice of the liver had been 
taken away. The lungs were perfect in form, and the state of the wind¬ 
pipe was perfect. 
Mr. Edwin John Butt, M.R.C.V.S. (son of last witness), said he exa¬ 
mined the parts of the liver and lungs taken by his father. They 
showed very acute inflammation, and nothing more. The liver was not 
in the least diseased, but it was a little enlarged. 
The witness’s attention was directed to the parts produced by Mr. 
Kent, and, in reply to Mr. Stone, said, there were no tubercles in the 
piece of preserved lung, which he cut open in several places; but added, 
that it exhibited traces of decided chronic disease, and was in a highly 
