592 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
Mr . JF. E. Forster replied that that morning one animal out 
of a cargo of twenty-five head of cattle w r hich had arrived at 
Deptford from Cronstadt had, he believed, died of cattle plague. 
Having arrived there, they would be slaughtered, and no com¬ 
munication would be allowed with other parts of the country. 
The representative of the Veterinary Department had gone down 
to Deptford to see that that part of the market in which the 
animal died should be kept isolated, not only from animals, but 
from persons ; and the only fear he had was the danger of the in¬ 
fection being taken by any human being who might have hap¬ 
pened to go near the animal. As to the animals themselves, 
every precaution would be taken to prevent the spread of the 
disease by destroying them, and disinfecting everything on board 
the vessel in which they came. 
Sir H. Selwin-Ibbetson wished to know whether steps would 
be taken to prevent any further introduction of cattle from 
Russia. 
Mr. JF. E. Forster replied that the importation from Russia 
was very small, and the order would that day be issued pre¬ 
venting it. 
Sir J. Flphinstone asked how the right hon. gentleman meant 
to deal with the ship which brought over the infected animal, 
for if it went to any other port it might spread the disease 
there. • ?j t < \ 
Mr. JF. E. Forster replied that his power was limited by the 
Act of Parliament. The power he possessed was to take care that 
the ship was thoroughly disinfected, but he was not aware that 
the department had power definitely tp stop ships. 
Veterinary Jurisprudence. 
COUNTY COURT, MELBOURNE. 
April mil. 
(Before his Honour Judge Pohlman and a Jury of four.) 
Alleged Veterinary Malpractice. 
SERRELL V . MITCHELL. 
This was an action brought by Mr. Thomas Serrell, surgeon, 
of Eitzroy, to recover £49 from Mr. Graham Mitchell, veterinary 
surgeon, for alleged malpractice in the treatment of a horse 
