VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
705 
down the colt. When the operation was performed and the colt 
came to rise it was found that its thigh had been so severely frac¬ 
tured by the fall that Mr. Dunn, veterinary surgeon, of Tarporley, 
who attended the same night by Roycroft’s directions, said it was a 
hopeless case, and ordered the animal to be destroyed. This was 
accordingly done, and the present action brought for the recovery 
of the insurance money. It was admitted by Mr. Hamilton that 
the actual operation was well performed. 
Mr. Brookes addressed the judge at some length for the defence, 
contending that, if the insurance were admitted, it merely covered 
death arising from the actual surgical operation, and had nothing to 
do with any other accident that might happen. But supposing the 
insurance did cover the accident, he argued that the plaintiff’s own 
men contributed to the accident and so relieved the defendant from 
all liability. He also directed particular attention to the words in 
the summons “ unskilfully performing a* surgical operation,” and 
maintained that the surgical operation did not commence until the 
first incision was made with the knife. 
Joseph Boycroft , examined by Mr. Brookes, said he had had four¬ 
teen years’ practice. Mr. Hamilton asked him if he would insure 
the colt, and he said, “Yes, if you like,” but nothing more was 
mentioned, and lie did not consider that the insurance had been 
effected. There were two men on each side of the colt and one in 
front. The ropes were attached to the fetlocks, and the men on the 
opposite side from him gave a sudden jerk which caused the animal 
to fall with his feet towards him .—His Honour asked how it was pos¬ 
sible that the colt with a rope fastened to the fetlocks could fall with 
its feet on the opposite side from that which the men were pulling.— 
Defendant failed to give a satisfactory explanation, and went on to 
say that when the colt was being secured ten or twelve men came up, 
and he said to the bailiff, “ Don’t bring the whole tribe, or you will 
pull the colt Lymm fromWarburton.” His charge for the operation 
was 10s., and if the colt had been insured for the amount named by 
the plaintiff his commission would have been 30s. 
The Judge expressed his surprise that the defendant should have 
so overlooked his own interests as not to adopt the ordinary course 
with regard to the insurance, upon which he received so large a per¬ 
centage. 
Cross-examined by Mr. Fletcher: His father insured the animals 
against all kinds of accidents when the operation was performed at 
his own place, and when he employed his own men. If he (defen¬ 
dant) had had his own men with the plaintiff’s colt the ordinary in¬ 
surance if effected would have covered the accident. 
Re-examined by Mr. Brookes: Always reduced the contract for 
insurance to writing, but that was not done in the present case. 
The Judge said there were two points to consider in the case. 
The first was as to whether the insurance was effected. Of this he 
thought there was little doubt, and then the question arose, when 
flid the liability attach ? It seemed to him that it attached the 
pioment the colt was brought out to be cast, because the throwing 
