VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 305 
fined the prisoner 40s., with the alternative of fourteen days’ hard 
labour. 
The fine was paid by Dr. Baker, who said he would have the 
horse Standard. 
Discrepancy of opinion among professional witnesses is not so 
uncommon as to excite any undue surprise ; but it must be con¬ 
fessed that the evidence respecting the condition of the horse, re¬ 
ferred to in the extract which we have taken from the Evening 
Standard of March 10th, is slightly staggering even to us who are 
not unaccustomed to “ horse causes.” Unprejudiced persons might 
imagine that there would be little room for difference of opinion 
when the question was between a horse being “badly glandered,” 
and having “nothing the matter with him.” 
The policeman looking at the animal with the eyes of common 
life sees “a bag of bones,” and also observes a wen under the 
animal’s throat “ as large as his doubled fist.” The veterinary 
surgeon when called in sees beyond these palpable defects, and 
detects that the horse is “ badly glandered.” 
On the other side the science of the owner, aided by the professional 
skill of a member of our profession whom he consults, only succeeds 
in discovering that the animal has “nothing the matter with him” 
but lowness of condition ; and for this, not generally a hopeless state 
of things, the beast is to be destroyed. Knowing nothing of the 
case beyond what we gather from the report, we cannot attempt to 
decide when the doctors disagree ; but we are strongly impressed 
with the idea that it would be far preferable for professional men 
to contrive to keep out of the witness-box altogether, than to pub¬ 
licly contradict each other upon matters of fact.— Eds. 
NISI PRIUS COURT, NORTHAMPTON. 
Tuesday, March 9. 
{Before Mr. Baron Pigott.) 
Branford v. Great Eastern Railway Company. 
A Special Jury Case. 
This was a claim for £50, for injuries done to a horse whilst in 
transit from Bury St. Edmunds to Thrapston, in July, 18G7. 
Mr. Bulwer, Q.C., and Mr. Perkins, were for the plaintiff; Mr. 
0‘Malley and Mr. Metcalfe for the defendants. 
Jlr. Bulwer addressed the jury, and said the action was brought 
by Mr. Branford, a veterinary surgeon at Oundle, for injuries done 
to a horse during his transit from Bury St. Edmunds to Thrapston. 
The injury complained of occurred at Bury St. Edmunds, in July, 
1867 . The plaintiff, at that time, attended the show of the Royal 
Agricultural Society, and bought a valuable colt, which he trans¬ 
ferred to the Great Eastern Railway Company, to be conveyed to 
Oundle. The colt was placed in a horse-box, in the show-yard, and 
