VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE 
139 
that corroboration he had appealed to the testimony of those students 
who had been examined by him ; and who, he said, proved that 
there was a very intimate alliance between the principal and a 
certain body of the students. After referring to that evidence, his 
Lordship said that, on the other hand, they had had, in the first 
place, the evidence of the two defenders, the principal himself, 
and his colleague. Dr. Dalzell; and he thought in a matter of this 
kind tliey were bound to take very specially into consideration not 
only the substance of the evidence given by those gentlemen, but 
their manner. He was not going to form any opinion on that case; 
that was a matter entirely for the jury, but he spoke of it as one ot 
the great advantages which the jury had, especially in a case of this 
kind, where there were falsehoods set up on one side or another. 
It was of the greatest importance that they should see the witnesses, 
and from their own judgment from everything they saw or heard, 
both from the girl and the two defenders, and see whether the girl 
or the defenders were most worthy of their credit. He had called 
their attention to the evidence which seemed to corroborate the 
evidence of the girl, and he had only to add that there were four 
or five students called, the very men who were said to have been 
present at these drinking parties—Capes, and all the rest of the 
unruly students—who said they had never been smoking or drink¬ 
ing there in their lives, except upon three specified occasions, not 
one of which answered the description of the girl Catherine Smith. 
Now, it had struck him as rather remarkable that these young men 
had been allowed to leave the box without cross-examination on this 
point. Where it was the intention of a party to challenge the 
truthfulness of a witness, he was bound to cross-examine the witness 
on the very matter on which he was going to challenge, so as to 
give the witness a chance of defending himself. In conclusion, let 
him remind them in a single word what was the question they were 
going to try. He had already explained to them that this case was 
what was called a privilege case, and, therefore, they could not find 
for the pursuer under this issue unless they were satisfied that this 
letter did falsely and calumniously represent what was set forth in 
the issue, and that it was concocted by the two defenders from a 
malicious motive, and not as members of the council of this college. 
But, on the other hand, if they were satisfied from a consideration 
of the whole circumstances that those two defenders in writing and 
forwarding this letter were not acting hona fide in the discharge of 
their duty, but acting from a motive of malice and ill-will against 
the pursuer, then they were entitled to find for the pursuer, with 
such damages as they saw fit. 
The jury retired about one o’clock, and after an absence of three 
hours, by a majority of ten to three, returned a verdict for the pursuer, 
and awarded ^500 damages .—The Edinburgh Evening Courant. 
