240 
Veterinary Jurisprudence. 
EDINBURGH VETERINARY COLLEGE. 
Feiday, January 29 th. 
M‘BEIDE V. WILLIAMS AND DALZELL. 
This case was tried in December last, before the Lord President 
and a jury, on the following issue : 
“ Whether, between 4th and 18th March, 1868, both inclusive, 
the letter in the schedule annexed was written and sent by the 
defenders to the pursuer; and whether a copy thereof was sent by 
the defenders to Mr. Fletcher Norton Menzies, secretary of the 
Highland and Agricultural Society; and whether the defenders, by 
said letter, did falsely and caliimniously represent to the secretary 
and directors of the said Highland and Agricultural Society, or to 
the said secretary or directors, that the pursuer was incapable of dis¬ 
charging the duties of the said Chair of Cattle Pathology in a proper 
and efficient manner, and that such was the unanimous opinion of 
the members of the Edinburgh Veterinary College Council— 
to the loss, injury, and damage of the pursuer?” Damages laid 
at 365000. 
Then followed the letter complained of. In the course of the 
trial certain witnesses were examined, upon the evidence of whom 
it appeared that the defenders made the statements contained in the 
said letter, in the performance of their duty as members of the 
Council of the said Veterinary College, and were therefore pro¬ 
tected from any liability for damages for making the said statements, 
unless it were proved that the statements were made maliciously. 
The pursuer then proceeded to adduce evidence to instruct malice 
on the part of the defenders. For the defenders it was objected to 
the competency of the evidence and line of examination so taken by 
the pursuer, on the ground that the pursuer was not entitled, under 
the issue, to prove malice on the part of the defenders. The Lord 
President refused to give effect to this contention, and allowed the 
questions and line of examination to proceed. 
The jury returned a verdict for the pursuer, assessing the 
damages at £500. The defenders have presented a bill of exceptions 
to the ruling of the Court, and also contended that the verdict was 
contrary to evidence. 
To-day the Court refused the bill of exceptions, holding that the 
pursuer w as duly entitled to prove malice to rebut the case of privi¬ 
lege which did not appear on the face of the record, but was 
disclosed at the trial; but they held that the verdict must be set 
aside, there not only being a want of sufficient evidence, but there 
