VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
149 
stomach he did not remove; they remained to be seen by the 
gentleman employed by the defendant. They were found in the 
more insensible part of the stomach, and a few in the smaller 
intestines. The bot which is generated in the stomach, and that 
sometimes found in the anus, are a different class.' The inflamma¬ 
tion of the bowels, which he observed, was the proximate cause of 
the death of the mare, and that might have arisen from a chill, pro¬ 
duced by standing some time in the cold after being driven hard, 
or having a pail of cold water given when she was’heated. The 
presence of bots prevented digestion, just as the teeth of a human 
being covered with velvet would prevent his eating. In the time of 
his grandfather there was a notion prevalent that they assisted 
rather than impeded digestion, but that was now exploded. He 
never knew of an instance in which bots had been described as un¬ 
soundness. Bots are more commonly met with in horses turned out 
in low fenny countries than on hill-side pastures. The food 
passing into the stomach in an unprepared state acts as an irritant 
and sets up inflammatory action, which, in the course of twelve 
hours, might cause death. 
Mr. Henry Kent and Mr. Wilkinson agreed in the opinion of the 
last witness, that the presence of bots in the stomach to the extent 
exhibited in the present case would be sufficient to cause severe 
injury to the mare, and ultimately to account for her death. 
Mr. O' Malley, on behalf of the defendant, stated that his client 
had not warranted the mare ; he had purchased her of a gentleman 
in Cambridgeshire, who had hunted her the previous season, and 
when sold to the plaintiff he said he believed her to be sound, but 
he would not warrant her. With regard to the notion entertained 
by Mr. Dollar and the other gentleman called by the plaintiff, that 
the presence of bots in the stomach of a horse was unsoundness, or 
that it tended to impair its general health, good appearance, and 
capability of working, he should call several gentlemen of very great 
experience in their profession who were of the contrary opinion, 
and who would state that the death of the mare was in no way 
attributable to the causes assigned by the witnesses for the plaintiff. 
Mr. W. Paris, examined.—I bought the mare from a gentleman 
of the name of Waller for ^642. I told the plaintiff that I believed 
her to be sound, but I did not warrant her. Some few days after 
the sale I heard she was unwell, and I sent Mr. Batt, the veterniary 
surgeon, to see her, and I was told he prescribed for her. I saw 
her afterwards some three or four times in harness, when she was 
in a great state of perspiration ; she was a very free goer. 
Cross-examined.—I have as many as twenty horses in my stables. 
When I sold her I had not the least hesitation in saying I believe 
her to be perfectly sound, but I would not warrant her. I am 
quite sure I did not do so. 
Mr. Charles Waller .—I reside near Royston. I hunted the mare 
during the season of 1870, when she went very well, and was always 
in good health. When the season was over I turned her into a pad- 
