VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
595 
was on the way to recovery. The horse was nearly well at the 
time of its death. He could have found out that the bone was 
injured, and he would not have used a probe to do so, but would 
have ascertained it by stirring the leg about. Did not think 
there was such a thing as spontaneous fracture, for there was 
always a cause for an effect. It was a wonder that the young 
man did not cause a second fracture of the bone by cantering 
the horse into town. The leg was 19-20ths all right when it 
was treated by the defendant. He saw the horse before it was 
killed, and discovered that the bone was broken then. Did not 
discover sequestrum then. That was after the complete fracture 
was sustained. Probing was the only mode by which sequestrum 
could be ascertained while a horse was alive. He had to pay 
damages once himself for his treatment of a horse. 
John P. Vincent , veterinary surgeon, agreed generally with the 
evidence of Mr. Miscamble. After the first fracture, any violent 
action would have been sufficient to fracture the bone again. At 
the post-mortem it was seen that the periosteum was thickened, 
showing a long continued and chronic inflammation. There 
were the remains of an old abscess in the leg. If he had wanted 
to probe the horse's leg he should have asked permission of the 
owner to do so. lie treated Stockowner for a broken leg, and 
when the raffle of Mr. Fisher’s horses occurred, it was very neces¬ 
sary he should carry the horse alive over that day, because if 
he did so he would save the owner 500 sovereigns. He did carry 
it over that day , but did not cure it, that being impossible. 
Mr. TV. V. Smith (the plaintiff's case being concluded) sub¬ 
mitted that The plaintiff must be nonsuited on two grounds. 
Pirst, that Mr. Mitchell was only Mr. Whiteman's servant, and 
was, therefore, not responsible; and, secondly, that there was no 
evidence whatever that Mr. Mitchell ever threw the horse 
at all. 
Mr. G. P. Smith contended that there was presumptive evi¬ 
dence of the horse having been thrown, Mr. Mitchell having 
stated that he would probably have to throw it, and having made 
no reply to Mr. Serrell when he told him he ought not to have 
thrown the horse. 
His Honour said he would reserve the points. 
Mr. W. V. Smith then addressed the jury, arguing that it was 
impossible for the defendant to have discovered what was wrong 
with the horse without probing it, and that probing was such a 
painful operation that no horse would bear it unless it were 
thrown and safely secured beforehand. He attributed the evi¬ 
dence which the veterinary surgeons had given against the 
defendant to ill-feeling, because he was in opposition practice to 
them, and called 
