766 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
conclude that no bad effects have arisen therefrom; and 
although this meeting does not identify itself with the in¬ 
discriminate consumption of such meat^ it considers that it 
would be impolitic to consign all to destruction. 
3. That this meeting is satisfied that strict supervision is 
already exercised over our flesh markets and slaughter¬ 
houses, and that although some unprincipled individuals may 
evade the rules and regulations, this is the exception, and 
they would respectfully submit to the authorities the neces¬ 
sity of strict vigilance on the part of the officials in that 
department. 
4. That with regard to the public sale of milk, the pro¬ 
duce of the COW' wffien labouring under disease—it is a W’ell- 
knowm fact, that when animals are under the influence of 
disease, there is almost an entire cessation of the secretion 
of milk, so that the quantity of milk sent to market under 
such circumstances must be very limited. 
Alex. Pottie, Secretary. 
Veterinary Jurisprudence. 
DEVIZES COUNTY COURT. 
Before C. E. D. Caillard, Esq., Judge. 
BREACH OF WARRANTY OF A HORSE. 
George Benjamin v. George Holmes. 
Mr. Bartrum, of Bath, appeared for the plalntifF i and !Mr. Rowland, 
of Hungerford, for the defendant. 
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a coal merchant carrying 
on an extensive business at Bath, against the defendant, a farmer living 
at AVootton Rivers, in this county, to recover £‘25 Os. 6d., for the breach 
of a warranty of a horse. 
3Ir. Bartrum, in stating the case to the jury, said the plaintiff com¬ 
plained that at Tan-hill fair he bought a horse of the defendant’s wife for 
£30, to which he received one of the most satisffictory warranties that it 
was possible to receive. The horse was warranted sound and a good 
worker, and the animal was taken home with the greatest care and cir¬ 
cumspection, for in order to satisfy himself that there should be no blame 
attached to the driver, the plaintiff went himself with the animal to Bath. 
To Mr. Benjamin’s surprise, on the horse being taken out of the stable 
next morning, it was found to be very lame. Mr. Benjamin at once had 
his horse consigned to the care of a most respectable veterinary surgeon 
—hlr. Broad, of Bath—and from what passed between them, a letter was 
written to Mr. George Holmes, the defendant. [The letter, which was 
read, was to the effect that finding the horse to be lame, the plaintiff had 
that day had him examined by a veterinary surgeon, whose certificate he 
had enclosed. ' The certificate stated that Mr. Broad had that day ex- 
