VET ERl NARY J URISPRUEE N CE. 
647 
the horse, and found it had disease of the skin commonly known as the 
sweet itch, a disease which was constitutional. There was no radical cure 
for It, but it might be temporarily allayed; It was, however, decided un¬ 
soundness. He charged half-a-guinea for the examination. 
Mr. H. Trenchard said it was somewhat remarkable that the defendant, 
a veterinary surgeon himself, knowing that the animal had got the disease, 
should have given such a price for it. Besides, they were, he believed, 
relations. A still more remarkable feature was that defendant would 
positively deny that he had given a warranty. 
The defendant stated that the first deal took place at his house. The 
plaintiff dined at his house. He had the horse upon trial, and did not 
warrant it, nor was it his custom to do so, as a horse might be sound to¬ 
day and unsound to-morrow. He did not warrant the horse at the 
plaintiff’s house, neither did he tell him he had bought it. He swore, 
most solemnly, that he never warranted the horse, if he was never to 
speak more. He told the plaintiff that if the horse had the sweet itch 
it was no fault of his, because he bought the horse for his own use. He 
never told the plaintiff that he had received a written warranty with the 
horse from Mr. Risdon. 
The defendant's son confirmed his father’s testimony as to no warranty 
beinor given with the horse. 
Mr. F. Trenchard. —You don’t call upon me to reply ? 
His Honour. —Certainly not. A distinct warranty, and a clear breach. 
The statement of the defendant is perfectly incredible.—Yerdict for the 
plaintiff. 
CRUELTY TO ANIMALS. 
George Greenwood, a drover, was charged on remand with cruelly ill- 
treating and torturing a sheep, and causing its death in the Metropolitan 
Cattle Market. 
It appeared that a sheep broke away from a flock, and the prisoner, 
who was coming towards it, was called on to stop the animal. He, at the 
time, had a large stick with a goad in it. He struck the sheep, and then, 
ran the stick into the poor thing with such force that it passed througli 
the skin and flesh on one side, through the entrails, and out on the other 
side. The stick, in passing through the animal, destroyed the kidneys, 
and one of the slaughtermen at the market said it was the most horrible 
sight he had ever seen. The sheep belonged to Mr. J. Thorpe, a cattle 
salesman, who, having heard of the circumstance, gave the prisoner into 
custody. 
Several salesmen, who were in attendance to hear the case, said they 
were determined to put down the cruelty at the Cattle Market, as it was 
a crying evil, and a disgrace to the metropolis. Although they were pre¬ 
pared to render every assistance, yet their eflbrts were rendered useless 
by the way in which the Market’s Improvements Committee granted 
licences to every one that applied. If a drover were convicted of cruelty 
or any offence, he could still work in the market. What they wanted was, 
that when a man had been covicted, his badge should be withdrawn, and 
he should not be allowed any more to work in the market. The salesmen 
also request that more police should be employed in and about the 
market, as that body is the only real and effectual check against the 
cruelty that is practised there. 
The Magistrate remanded the prisoner, as the principal witness—a boy, 
did not know the nature of an oath. 
