192 
YETElllNARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
he had opened her mouth, and believed that there was nothing the matter 
with her. 
Mr. G. Jtotcliffe, farmer and dealer, Haresfield, near Gloucester, gave 
testimony of a similar kind. 
Mr. Wm. Mode, farmer, of Elmley Lovett, deposed that he was in 
Worcester fair on the day in question, and >vas about to purchase the 
heifer of the defendant when Berridge seized her. The heifer was getting 
better of the disease, and he would have given within lO^. as much for 
her as if she had been well. Considered her to be worth £9, and would 
give that for her now. He thought that no veterinary surgeon who 
understood his business could have said he would not give a sovereign 
for her. There was certainly no ulcer in her mouth of the size of a 
florin. 
Mr. P. Foxwell, farmer, of the London Road, said there were scores of 
infected animals in the fair that day, and not a Saturday occurred with¬ 
out lots being there. AVhen the disease first appeared great complaints 
were made, and considerable alarm prevailed; but now the farmers and 
dealers were used to it, and took no notice of the disease, as it was not 
attended with much danger. He should not hesitate to send infected 
cattle to market, provided they were sufficiently recovered to walk there. 
Mr. Rose, veterinary surgeon, said that the breaking out in the mouth 
was not properly called an ulcer; it was where a vesicle had slouglied off 
and left a cicatrix. It used to be called a vesicular epidemic or epizootic 
disease; and the vulgar name “tick,” now given to it, originated from 
the last syllable of the hard word “epizootic.” He did not believe it to 
be infectious, but that it was contagious there could be no doubt. The 
heifer in question had been in an unsound state, and ought not to have 
been put with other cattle. He would rather that poor stock had the 
disease now than at any other time of the year. It very generally ))re- 
vailed, but no doubt there were large herds of cattle wdiich had never yet 
had it, and of course it would be better that they never should. !Many 
owners of stock got up in the morning and found scores of their cattle 
affected wdiich had never been in contact with others. Defendant’s 
heifer was now in a fair way to recovery, and he should not object to put 
her in the fair; but on last fair day she could not have been in a right 
state for the fair. 
Mr. Wilson, farmer, having also given evidence, 
The magistrates retired, and on their return the l^fayor said the Bench 
had decided on a conviction ; but although they had the power to inflict 
a penalty of £’20, they did not intend to do so, but weie content to mark 
their sense of this peculiar case by fining the defendant £l, imduding 
-costs; and if he wi^hed to appeal, every facility wumld be given him for 
the purpose. As the heifer was recovering, she would at once be given 
up to tlie defendant. 
Mr. Guisforcl asked the Bench to grant a case, to which their wor.diips 
acceded, the Mayor adding that the magistrates w'ere of opinion that 
Berridge had only done his duty.— Worcester Herald, 
