VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
583 
the right side of the road, the dog cart of the plaintiff being about six feet 
from the pavemeut. Both the drivers shouted out, but before either 
could stop there was a collision, the horses lecoiled, and the groom urged 
his horse as fast as he could, almost touching the head of the flyman’s 
horse. The defendant immediately called out to stop, and threatened 
that if he did not he would drive into him. After mentioning several 
points of contradiction in the evidence on behalf of the plaintiff’, tlie 
learned counsel in conclusion said there had been every endeavour on the 
part of the defendant to settle the case by arbitration prior to the first 
trial coming on. 
His Lordship, in summing up, said that the precise question the jury 
would have to answer was, whether the damage sustained by the plaintiff 
was occasioned by the negligence of the defendant. It appeared to him 
that the point they had to concentrate their attention upon was, whether 
the plaintiff’s mare was near Mr. Myer’s wall. If so, the negligence of 
the defendant must have caused the accident, and, as far as he could see, 
the negligence that caused that accident, if the horse was close to Mr. 
Myer’s wall, was in being on the wrong side of the road. If they were 
satisfied that the defendant was upon the wrong side of the road, accord¬ 
ing to the rule of driving, why then it would be the negligence of the 
defendant that caused the accident, and their verdict would be against 
him. He put this very carefully before them, because if they should 
think that the collision took place on Pince’s side of the road, where the 
defendant said it did, why then the plaintiff would be the person who 
would be wrong, and the plaintiff would be the person that might be 
liable for the loss of the defendant’s horse. Furthermore, although no 
evidence had been brought on this point, he would tell the jury that if 
the collision took place in the centre of the road, it would be clear that 
the plaintiff could maintain no action for the loss of his horse ; assuming 
the rule that each party should keep upon his near side. For if the plain¬ 
tiff’s negligence conduced to the accident, to which the defendant’s ne^li- 
gence also conduced, then no party could sustain an action for any loss 
experienced. 
The jury retired to consider their verdict, at a quarter to four o’clock, 
and after an absence of half an hour they returned into court and gave a 
verdict for the plaintiff, damages 60 guineas. 
THE DOG ATsD THE FOllTUNE - TELLER. SUPERSTITION 
REGARDING RABID DOGS. 
Clehkenwell Police Couht. 
A respectable-looking woman, who had with her a child about six 
years of age, applied to iMr.D’Eyncourt under the following circumstances ; 
The applicant stated that her child had been bitten by a dog, and as 
she did not know whether it was mad or not she wanted the magistrate 
to grant her an order to have it destroyed. The person to whom the dog 
belonged said the dog was not mad, and they would not allow it to be 
destroyed without she gave them lOi'. A fortune-teller had said that the 
dog had better be killed, or else her child would go mad, and although 
she did not say when that was likely to take place, still when the planets 
crossed such a thing might occur. It was a sad thing for a poor mother 
to be in such a fix, and that was why she should like the dog destroyed. 
Mr. D’E^ncourt that there was much prejudice among a certain class 
