VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
597 
probe, the animal reared and plunged so much that it was im¬ 
possible to probe it in that way. He therefore got the hobbles, 
and they threw the horse. When it was on the ground, and 
while he was probing it, he distinctly heard a cracking of the 
bones (crepitus). He then considered further treatment useless, 
and the horse was afterwards destroyed. Miscamble came before 
the horse was killed, and examined it. He asked witness if he 
thought there was a fracture of the bone, to which he replied in 
the affirmative. Miscamble declined to give an opinion, though 
asked by witness to do so. A post-mortem was made, and on 
removing the skin of the leg extensive effusion was found. Im¬ 
mediately over the periosteum (which was thickened, inflamed, 
and easily stripped from the bone), there was an abscess contain¬ 
ing several small pieces of bone. After cutting away the bone 
they found there had been a partial fracture of the leg, arising 
from injury. There was a deposit of bone inside the leg bone, 
which, in his opinion, had been going on for five or six weeks. 
He also found that this deposit extended into the elbow-joint, 
and would, in a month or two, have caused stiffness of the joint. 
Without the removal of the pieces of bone there would have been 
no chance whatever of the wound being cur$d, and without 
cutting down to the bone no person 'cduld possibly have seen 
that there was any disease of the bone. It was thoroughly im¬ 
possible that so much sequestrum in a bone could have been 
removed by natural causes. It was necessary to cast the horse 
before it could be probed. He managed the veterinary business 
of Mr. Whiteman, and got half the profits, after expenses were 
paid, for doing so. L . 
Charles Forbes, veterinary surgeon, said he agreed altogether 
with the treatment which Mr. Mitchell had adopted. It was 
quite proper to throw the horse. 
James Michael Rowell, veterinary surgeon, did not disagree 
with the treatment adopted by Mr. Mitchell. It was quite right 
to throw the horse, and a man would probably both injure himself 
and the animal he was operating on if he tried to probe without 
it. The horse in question could never have recovered in any 
case from such a diseased bone as it had; at least not so as to 
have been of any use, because it would have had a stiff joint, and 
been useless. 
John Whiteman, M.L.A,, said it would have been impossible 
for the horse to have recovered by natural causes, so as to be of 
any use with such a diseased bone. 
His Honour then summed up the evidence to the jury, and 
said the principal thing for them to consider appeared to be 
whether a rough system like throwing was the proper plan to 
have adopted in the case. 
