222 
VETERINARY LEGISLATION. 
which the trial judge had the right to believe, showed that plain¬ 
tiff being called to treat the animal, and having undertaken its 
cure on the day of his last visit, the horse at that time being 
very ill, agreed to call the next day early, but neglected ever to 
call again. That the action of the plaintiff in leaving the animal 
he had assumed to take charge of in such a dangerous condi¬ 
tion and failing again to call, according to his promise, was 
such clear negligence as justified the judgment rendered by the 
trial court. (See Williams vs. Gilman, 71 Marne 21; Ballous. 
Prescott, 64 id. 306.) And that the City Court could properly 
determine that defendant’s horse was suffering from an “im¬ 
paction of the colon,” instead of inflammation of the bowels, 
and therefore that the plaintiff who prescribed for the latter dis¬ 
ease, did not exercise a reasonable degree of skill in his treat¬ 
ment of the horse. 
This is the case of Boom vs. Read, reported in 67 Hun., 
426; S. C., 52 State Rep., 777; 23 N. Y. Supp., 421. 
VETERINARY LEGISLATION. 
REGULATING VETERINARY PRACTICE IN MARYLAND. 
Baltimore, Md., April 19, 1894. 
To the Editor American Veterinary Review: 
Dear Sir: —Herewith you will find a copy of the law regu¬ 
lating the practice of veterinary medicine and surgery in Mary¬ 
land. By the fifteenth section much latitude is given the 
owners of animals outside the City of Baltimore, to which place 
not being in any county the act applies strictly. 
The modification of the bill was found necessary on account 
of the few veterinarians practising in the counties. You will 
oblige me by publishing the law with this letter for the benefit 
of students and others intending to practice in this State. 
Yours truly, 
A. W. CLEMENT, Secretary. 
