190 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
others belonging to him; it was evidently suffering from the disease, 
foaming at the mouth, and feet sore and bleeding. Told him the heifer 
was diseased, but Brown said it was not. Subsequently he admitted it 
had been diseased about a fortnight, and said he had bought the beasts at 
Bristol of a man who guaranteed them to be all right. 
Mr. Gaisford, solicitor, Stowe, Berkely, appeared for the defendant, 
and cross-examined Berridge, who said that the disease was an epidemic, 
and what some called the murrain, being an inflammation of the tongue, 
mouth, and feet. Believed it first showed itself in the mouth. No one 
instigated him to look after defendant’s cattle in particular. Was on 
duty, and saw them passing, and could not mistake their appearance. 
Didn’t know Mr. James Corbett; didn’t ask him or any other man to 
point out the cattle having the disease; might have asked some one to 
give an opinion, but not because he had any doubt about it himself Had 
looked round the whole of the fair, but saw no cattle bad enough to warrant 
his seizing them. Did not see one lot of twenty-seven cattle, all having the 
disease. Had attended Worcester fairs for the last twelve months, and 
this was the first case he had seen. Had known the disease to last for a 
month or six weeks. 
Mr. Furnivall, veterinary surgeon, who has recently come to reside in 
this city, deposed that he had examined the heifer that morning; found 
two ulcers on the tongue and several small ones round the upper and 
lower gums; the fore feet were in a sloughing state, and the hind ones 
appeared to have been in the same state, but were drying up in conse¬ 
quence of the dressings which had been applied. The disease was what 
was popularly known as “ the thrush.” Pigs and sheep suffered from the 
same disease, and he had made an experiment of infecting some pigs, 
which became so bad that he was compelled to kill them. This disease 
was not the variola ovina, which was confined to sheep. Had never known 
the thrush removed under twenty-one days. Cattle sometimes died from 
it, but if taken in time the disease was not fatal. If anything, it was 
more infectious than the smallpox in sheep. The witness, on cross- 
examination, said he had had considerable experience in the Birmingham 
and Wolverhampton markets, where the disease prevailed to a great 
extent. In his own experience he had known four fatal cases, from 
neglect, which had occurred near Walsall. In general, animals having 
once had the disease did not catch it again ; and so he would rather 
purchase a heifer which had had the disease than one which had not, for 
the simple reason that the latter was more liable to become infected and 
communicate the disease to other cattle. He accounted for the existence 
of the disease from atmospherical causes ; it was contagious and infectious. 
In his opinion it would take four days after a beast had become infected 
before the symptoms would appear. Sometimes the disease appeared 
first in the foot, sometimes in the mouth. Had never heard of sheep 
being seized by an inspector for having the foot-rot, though that disease 
was quite as infectious as any. Would positively swear that he had seen 
in the mouth of the heifer an ulcer of the size of a florin. The 
witness fully and technically described the appearances presented by 
the disease. 
Mr. C. Marsden, veterinary surgeon, had gone to the Hope and Anchor 
stables in company with the last witness and Berridge, and examined the 
heifer. His evidence was generally corroborative of Mr. Furnivall’s, 
adding that the foot-rot in sheep did not afiect the quality of the meat as 
human food, while the thrush did. Mr. Marsden was cross-examined at 
some length, but with a tendency to confirm the evidence of the last 
witness. 
