VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
133 
Professor Dick’s trust-deed. Professor Williams consulted me 
whether Mr. McBride, being a student of Professor Gamgee’s, 
was qualified for the chair. I gave it as my opinion that he was 
not qualified. 
The examination of Baillie Fyfe closed the evidence. 
The Solicitor-General then addressed the Court for the pursuer. 
After referring to Mr. M‘Bride’s appointment, and the disturbances 
in his class, he said there must have been some other reason than 
that the lectures were not good to cause the disturbances. Mr. 
M‘Bride said it was very manifest that the same set of students did 
it continually. This had been abundantly confirmed by evidence. 
And it was very odd that it should have got so much into men’s 
minds that there was a remarkable coincidence in the noisy set in 
Mr. M‘Bride’s class and in the Principal’s favonrite students— 
those who attended most at his house. It did strike men, and it 
had been spoken of, and they had not got any explanation of how 
this set became to be noisy in the class; but they had undoubtedly 
this remarkable fact, that when Mr. M‘Bride pointed them out, 
named them, and called for an examination with the view to the 
proper steps being taken to their punishment by the only authority 
having any power in the matter, that authority had made an in¬ 
vestigation, had come to the conclusion that these men were guilty, 
and had been guilty of a misdemeanour of the gravest kind, such as 
Mr. Williams said he had never seen in the class-room, yet they had. 
not even been reprimanded. He was not going to make observa¬ 
tions on the contradictory evidence in regard to the Principal’s 
friendship to a set of students. In regard to the evidence of the 
servant girl, he was in a position to state that her evidence had only 
been sought for within the last few days. She had been brought 
there, and they had seen the way in which she had given her evi¬ 
dence. She did not appear to him to be pert, forward, or over- 
zealous in the slightest degree. She did not appear to him to be 
inventing a story in order to do injury to a former master. They 
had seen how she had stood the cross-examination which the Lord 
Advocate very properly had subjected her to. He hoped the 
evidence would be thoroughly sifted, for it was impossible that there 
could be doubt in regard to plain matter of fact, and to find which 
of the parties were perjured. In regard to Principal Williams’ 
evidence that he could not recognise the rioters, he thought it 
showed that he had no desire to do so. He held that the letter had 
not been written after a careful and impartial examination, but had 
sprung from feelings regarding Mr. M‘Bride which would be grati¬ 
fied by his removal—feelings which were to be gratified without 
reference to the grievous blow which the gratification of them would 
inflict upon the pursuer. 
The Court then adjourned till Wednesday morning at ten o’clock. 
