VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
191 
Mr. Gahford then addressed the Bench, commenting on the importance 
of their decision in this case, which would affect a very large circle of 
farmers, dealers, and others. There was always a very natural bias in 
favour of upholding a public officer in the performance of his duty, and 
he would not attempt to cast blame on Mr. Berridge, but it was a fact 
that if he had looked through the fair he would have found scores of 
cattle affected by the disease. Now the 11th and 12th Victoria was a 
highly penal statute, and in putting a construction on it the Bench would 
probably give the defendant the benefit of any doubt. The Act was 
passed under very peculiar circumstances, and was more specially directed 
against the variola ovina. It was only by inference, and almost by 
accident, that horned cattle had been brought within the scope of the Act. 
Some intermeddling M.P. had interpolated a few words in the Act, on 
which such informations as the present were based, and he commented 
on the michievous results of various Members of Parliament each putting 
his “ finger in the pie,” and making interpolations for various purposes 
not at first contemplated in the Act. He urged that, as the Act was at 
first intended only to apply to the smallpox in sheep, and then the words 
added, “ or any disorder of like nature,” that therefore it was imperative 
to show that the disease under which defendant’s heifer was labouring 
was ejusdem generis., or of the same kind as smallpox. Pie contended 
that the thrush was not the same kind of disease as the smallpox, and 
that the Act was not intended to embrace such mild diseases as that, but 
only the more fatal kinds, as smallpox, pleuro-pneumonia, &c. If the 
Bench were to decide against the defendant they might as well close the 
markets and fairs, as farmers and dealers would not be got to attend 
them, it being impossible to guard against their cattle being seized as 
infected, although they might have left home apparently in good health. 
At this time of the year the owners of cattle were never safe, for the 
beasts might be well one day and ill the next—might be sent from home 
well, and when in the fair exhibit symptoms for the first time, and be 
seized. Defendant had bought the heifers of a Mr. Johnson, and thought 
them quite sound. In conclusion, Mr. Gaisford put it to the Bench to 
say whether this disease came within the meaning of the Act. 
The magistrates consulted, and decided that in their opinion it did; 
whereupon Mr. Gaisford called— 
Mr. James Corhett, farmer &c., of Croome, who deposed that he had 
kept Worcester markets and fairs for forty years. Was at the fair on the 
19th. The disease in question was commonly called “ the tick.” It was so 
prevalent that no one could go into any market without seeing some diseased 
beasts, and there were many of them in Worcester fair on the 19th inst. 
On that occasion Inspector Berridge asked witness to go with him and 
examine some cattle, but he declined doing so, remarking that his own 
cattle were as likely to have it as any others, and if the inspector didn’t 
know his own business some one else should be put in his office. The 
disease was now so well known that no one was frightened at it, and 
indeed the farmers and dealers took but little notice of it. He had 
known beasts well one day and “down” the next, and defendant’s cattle 
might have been well when they were sent from home, and yet show 
symptoms of disease in the fair. For his part, he would prefer buying 
cattle which had had the disease, and was now willing to give defendant 
£8 for his heifer, being about the same that he would have given for her in 
good health. Would rather have the whole of his cattle tainted at this 
time of the year, as they suffered less now than in any other season; and 
if he were going to graze them he would not object to turn in a diseased 
beast among the whole of his herd. With regard to defendant’s heifer, 
