io8 
WANTED—A PROTECTIVE LAW FOR VETERINARY PRACTICE. 
trouble with his head as a result. The witness was decided 
about that point, though Mr. Hamilton endeavored to get him 
to state that colic would induce pain in the head. 
At this point the defence moved that the court instruct the 
jury to find a verdict of not guilty on the ground that it was 
necessary to show that there must have been malice on the part 
of the respondent, and no malice had been shown by the testi¬ 
mony. 
Counsel for the prosecution contended that the statutes did 
not indicate that cruelty and malice are synonymous terms. 
Judge Bonney overruled the point, and called for the de- 
ence’s witnesses. 
Exceptions were taken to the ruling. 
AFTERNOON SESSION. 
In the afternoon the witnesses for the defence took the stand. 
Dr. Maxwell, the defendant, was the first witness. He testi¬ 
fied that he was almost 71 years old. He had been a veterinary 
surgeon for over thirty years. The bottle of red liniment was 
handed him, and he was asked if he manufactured that liniment. 
“I did once, but that isn’t my liniment now.” 
“Why?” 
“Because it has been adulterated. If anything touches this 
liniment, the finger or anything, it is adulterated.” 
He bathed the horse’s head with the red liniment to soothe 
him, as he had been banging his head on the floor. He only 
had with him half of an ounce bottle of it. He put most of it on 
his head, was going to put it in his ear, but found that he hadn’t 
enough to make it worth while. Had he had enough, he should 
have poured it in the ear to quiet and soothe the ear. 
His treatment seemed to quiet the horse. He put a plaster 
on his bowels to ease the pain. 
Witness had been there forty-five minutes before Mr. Staples 
came. 
