VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
581 
such be put into execution to-day, as he and others who 
were present had cases to relate. Both the motion and 
suggestion were agreed to, wlien Messrs. Dobin, Sharp, 
Robinson, McDougall, and others, gave some very important 
and remarkable accounts of cases. 
The chairman then called upon Mr. Mitchell to address 
the meeting on Quittor, which he did in a most satisfactory 
manner, and entering minutely into a description of the 
structure of the foot, the nature of the disease, as likewise 
its causes and treatment. 
An animating discussion followed upon the best method 
of treating certain cases of the disease, during which much 
diversity of opinion was expressed, but which was, never¬ 
theless, of a practical nature, and calculated to be of vast 
importance to all. 
After the discussion the chairman intimated that the 
society would meet next month, and that Mr. Blackie, V.S., 
Bellshill, would read a paper. The subject would be inti¬ 
mated eight days previous to the meeting. 
(Signed) Alexander Pottie, 
Secretary. 
Veterinary Jurisprudence. 
THE DEVON AND EXETER LAMMAS ASSIZES. 
Nisi Prius Court. 
Before Lord Chief Justice Earle. 
THE LATE RUNNING DOWN CASE. 
TROOD V. BALKWILL. 
Mr. Collier, Q.C., and Mr. Stock and Mr. Bere were counsel for the 
plaintiff; attorney, Mr. Floud. Mr. Karslake, Q.C., and Mr. Lopez, 
were counsel for the defendant; attorneys, Messrs. Daw and Son. 
It will doubtless be remembered that the question in dispute between 
the parties was tried at the last assizes, when a verdict was given in 
favour of the plaintiff. A new trial had since been moved for by the de¬ 
fendant in the Court of Queen’s Bench, and granted. 
The case was partly gone through on the previous day, but was ad¬ 
journed, owing to the lateness of the hour, until this morning. 
The pleadings were opened by Mr. Bere. Mr. Edward Trood was the 
plaintiff, and Mr. Robert Balkwill the defendant. The declaration set 
forth that the defendant ran against a horse of the plaintiff’s, and killed it. 
The defendant pleaded first not guilty, and secondly that the accident 
happened through the negligence and improper conduct of the plaintiff’s 
