458 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
This concluded the case, and the bench retired. 
Mr. Bruce , on returning to Court, said that he had the great 
advantage of having the assistance on the bench of a gentleman 
much more skilled in matters relating to physiology than himself. 
They had come to the conclusion that they were not satisfied that 
the practice complained of caused such an amount of suffering to 
the animal subjected to it as to amount to cruelty. 
Mr. Brumby asked if the Bench would grant a case. He under¬ 
stood the Court to rule that the practice of sending cattle to market 
without being milked at their proper time, and to allow them to 
remain until noon the next day without relief, was not cruelty. 
Mr. Bruce said the Bench were not satisfied with the evidence 
before them. Was it not rather a question of fact than of law ? 
If a case had to be stated it would only be necessary to send up 
the evidence. The decision in favour of the defendant went entirely 
upon the evidence adduced before the court. 
The summons was accordingly dismissed. 
Mr. Ferns applied for costs. 
Mr. Bruce replied that the custom, spoken to throughout the 
case, appeared to have been of such long duration, according to 
the evidence for the defendant (and it had not been shaken), that 
even if the question had rested upon that ground he was not sure 
whether they could have found a man guilty of cruelty for pursuing 
a practice which had existed since the memory of man, and pro¬ 
bably long before. Cruelty consisted in a man doing something 
recklessly or wilfully cruel; and a man could hardly be said to be 
doing what was recklessly and wilfully cruel when he was merely 
following a custom pursued in markets for years. The defendant 
would be allowed costs for the day. 
The Court then rose after a sitting of six hours.— Feeds Mercury. 
PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 
Mr. John Keene, a dairyman, in the Latymer Road, Hammer¬ 
smith, was summoned, on April 26th, at the Hammersmith Police 
Court, by the Metropolitan Board of Works, under the Contagious 
Diseases (Animals) Act, for not giving notice to the police, with all 
practical speed, of the fact that his four cows were suffering from 
pleuro-pneumonia. 
Mr. Fry appeared to support the summons, and referred the 
Magistrate to several clauses in the Act bearing upon the case. He 
said the defendant was liable to a penalty of £20, as his number of 
cows did not exceed four. Had there been more he would have 
been liable to a penalty of £5 for each. 
Mr. Joseph Woodger, jun., veterinary surgeon, said he was the 
inspector appointed by the board for the district. On the 4th ult. 
he visited the defendant’s premises and found three cows suffering 
from pleuro-pneumonia, and also the carcase of a cow which had 
been so effected. He asked the defendant liow long the animals 
