126 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
Cross-examined.—He was perceptibly lame [when he moved. It was 
a defect which any person might discover. It would be perceptible to 
anybody who was the slightest judge of horses. If the tendons were 
affected, but not sufficiently to cause lameness, it might be seen if the 
horse were standing on a level surface, but not in a field or on a muddy 
road. In a bricked stable it would be perceptible. He never saw a 
horse with a contraction of that kind at birth. 
By Mr. Adams.—He thought the deformity might not be apparent to 
an inexperienced purchaser of horses. 
By the Judge.—It becomes more apparent with work. He thought the 
horse might be worth from £22 to £23 at the time of the purchase. 
Mr. Heyes being recalled, said he thought it would be worth 20 
guineas. 
John Roberts .—Remembered Hughes bringing a horse to Liverpool. 
The person who bought the horse took it to Mr. Heyes. Knew it was 
the horse Hughes had from Griffiths. Remembered going to Griffiths 
about it at Llangefni. "Was sent to him by Thomas Hughes. Griffiths 
told him the horse was sound when he sold him, and that he was sound 
then. Witness told Griffiths he had been informed by Thomas Hughes 
that he bought the horse with a warranty by word of mouth. Griffiths 
in reply to that said, “ Yes, he is sound.” He did not say anything about 
“ as far as he knew.” He said that Thomas Hughes had seen the horse 
himself. Witness asked him if he would take the horse back, and he 
said he would if he was in the same condition as when he sold him. 
Cross-examined.—Thomas Hughes sold the horse himself in Liverpool. 
Sold it for £36, and two horses to boot. After being returned by 
Gilbert Heyes, he was sold at Lucas’s for £28 IO 5 ., he thought. The 
money was received by Mrs. Wilson’s manager. Had known this horse 
for twelve months; he appeared different when brought to Liverpool 
from what he was when witness saw him before. He could not put his 
heel on the ground. 
Mr. Powell ably addressed the court, after which his Honour gave a 
verdict for defendant, but deducting the fee of 10^. Qd. paid to Mr. 
Heyes. The expenses also of one of the gentlemen brought from Liver¬ 
pool were waived by consent of defendant’s advocate. 
HORRIBLE CRUELTY TO A HORSE. 
A CHARGE, involving the perpetration of great cruelty to a horse, 
has just been brought before Mr. Delmour, chairman, and a bench of 
magistrates, at the county police-court, Canterbury. The defendant 
was named George O. Groombridge, carrying on business as a carman, 
and the prosecution was instituted by the Royal Society for the Pre¬ 
vention of Cruelty to Animals. JSIr. Love, from the office of the 
Royal Society, made a statement, which was borne out by the testimony 
of several witnesses, to the effect that on the 22nd of December the de¬ 
fendant attached a poor, miserable, worn-out horse to a waggon heavily 
laden with timber, which he intended to draw to a town some miles 
distant. The horse had not proceeded more than 300 yards from the 
defendant’s premises when it came to a standstill, the road being rather 
hilly, and from sheer weakness and debility was unable to proceed 
further. The defendant thereupon went back to his premises, obtained 
a large bundle of straw, and having placed it under the belly of the horse 
nearest to its hinder parts, he set fire to it. The flames ascended to the 
