518 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
relative to a book which Carter had shown him, and in which were en¬ 
tered his cow transactions for twenty years, but the book shown in 
court was not the same, the other being much larger. I'he book 
was much scrutinised by the judge and jury, and it was thought to have 
been got up for a purpose. 
Henry Popplewell^ of the Mason’s Arms, deposed to Exley and Carter 
being at his house, and their leaving together. 
Mr. Godfrey Smith, veterinary surgeon, Barnsley, was the last witness, 
lie had been called in to see the cow. He found her suffering under 
chronic disease of the liver, of some weeks’ standing. He attended'her 
through April. He had ordered her to have the wine, “Old Tom,” &c., 
spoken of by Mr. Sheldon. His own charge for medicine and attendance 
was upwards of £3. 
This was the case for the plaintiff. None of the witnesses bad been 
shaken in cross-examination. 
Mr. Dransjield then addressed the jury for the defendant. They had 
heard the points of evidence on the other side. The points which he 
should bring before them they would find were very contradictory to 
tho.se for the plaintiff. Except a warranty could be proved, the plaintiff 
could not recover. Then there was the particulars as to time on which 
they would find some discrepancy. He should call before them Mr., 
Mrs. and Miss Carter, and they would hear the nature of the evidence 
they (the witnesses) would give, and it would be for the jury to judge 
of its credulity. 
He then called 3Ir. Carter, whose evidence will be best described by 
stating that he flatly contradicted almost everything stated by Mr. 
Sheldon. In his cross-examination, too, by Mr. Freeman, with confident 
assurance, he gave the lie direct to nearly all that the plaintiff’s witnesses 
had sworn to. In answer to Mr. Freeman, he said they had all sworn 
falsely, but he had spoken the truth. 
John Hirst, an innocent-looking man, was next called. "Witness had 
been in the service of Mr. Carter twenty years. He remembered two 
cows being sold, but did not know when, but one went away on the 4th 
December, 1861. In answer to Mr. Freeman, the honest man said he 
had been told what to say before he came. 
Afrs. Carter was next brought forward. She knew all about the 
second cow, but nothing about the first cow. It was sold in their house 
in the evening. It was a wet night, and Carter came in to put off his 
wet clothes, and then went out again, but she did not know what for. 
He came in again by himself, and afterwards Sheldon came in with the 
milk the cow had given, and said she would do if they could agree. She 
was sold for £14 5s. When her husband came back from Barnsley he 
said the cow was poorly at Hoyland, but Crosland (their servant) said 
she was not poorly but had improved in her milk. 
Miss Carter was then called. This witness remembered the second 
cow affair. She remembered Sheldon bringing in the milk, and his 
saying the cow would do if they could agree. She got tea ready for 
them. Crosland had said the cow would do for any one. She had im¬ 
proved in milk. 
Sarah Peel, an elderly dame, sister to Carter, gave evidence to the 
effect that she was in when Crosland came in, and she observed that it 
was a good meal of milk, and the cow would do for anybody. 
This was the defendant’s case. 
Mr. Freeman, in replying, said he had no doubt the jury would at 
once see on which side the truth lay. As to the defendant’s book of 
entries, which the jury had seen, he contended that it had been got up 
