VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
311 
He did not hear a man call out from the train not to go so fast. 
He did not see the man there, nor did he hear Mr. Branford say 
he would report him. 
John Webster, station-inspector at Bury, said he saw the box drawn 
up to the passenger train by a horse, and had hold of the handle of 
'the door, and walked a distance of twenty yards. It went quite 
slowly, and after the horse was taken away, he pushed up the box 
with his hands. This witness then corroborated the other wit¬ 
nesses for the defence, and also said he did not see any one in the 
box. After Mr. Branford came upstairs he saw him and a young 
man in the box. He heard Mr. Branford tell Balls that he had 
ridden the horse seventeen miles to quiet him, and he heard Balls 
tell him he ought to be taken up for cruelty to animals. 
By Mr. Bulwer—He did not see the partition down, nor did he 
see the top of the box forced up. The front of the box was padded 
up as far as the horse’s chest. It was padded also behind. 
Charles Boughton, lampman at Bury station, corroborated the 
previous witnesses, and said it was not until the tail lamp was put on 
that he heard a noise in the box. 
By Mr. Bulwer—He came up with all the other witnesses from 
Bury, with the exception of Balls. The subject was not mentioned 
between them on the journey up. It had not been mentioned since 
they had been at Northampton ; indeed, it had not been mentioned 
at all since the accident. 
Mr. O'Malley again addressed the jury, and contended that it 
had been clearly shown by five witnesses who knew the station 
well, and were all present at the time, that there had been no negli¬ 
gence on the part of the defendants. 
Mr. Bulwer replied on the part of the plaintiff, and alluded to 
the extraordinary fact that every one of the railway servants denied 
that this matter had ever been talked over amongst them since the time 
the accident occurred. He did not blame the railway company, for 
they were defendants on the information they received from their 
servants, but it was quite evident the witnesses for the defence were 
all trying to screen themselves and Inspector Balls from censure. 
The Chief Justice, in summing up, said the evidence of the wit¬ 
nesses for the defence and for the plaintiff was directly contradic- 
tor}'', and it was for the jury to decide who was to be believed. 
His lordship also alluded to the strange assertion made by all the 
witnesses for the defence, that the matter had never been spoken of 
amongst them, and again paid a high tribute to the .abilities of Mr. 
Branford, and spoke of the candid and fair manner in which he 
gave his evidence. It was a matter of great satisfaction to find 
that the Veterinary College was sending into the country such in¬ 
telligent and able men. They had gained that day from Mr. Bran¬ 
ford an amount of information which was not only useful in that 
case, but would be useful on other occasions. 
A verdict for the plaintiff for the full amount was immediately 
returned.— Northampton Herald. 
