952 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
Mr. J. Mitchell^ veterinary surgeon, Leeds, said he examined 
the mare on the 10th of August, and found she was unsound in the 
wind ; she was a “whistler,” which is a degree of “roaring.” 
Mr. Dale, in defence, said the question was whether the mare 
was sound or unsound at the time of sale. The animal w^as in good 
condition and fat at the time, and had been in the stable for some 
time before the fair, which might produce a noise when she was 
taken fresh out again. Then the sea air might have affected her, 
and the whistling might have arisen from many causes. He argued 
that the purchasers in Brussels should have found out the unsound¬ 
ness, if there was any, before, because they had the mare in their 
possession three months. 
3Ir. Mart, the defendant, was sworn, and said he had the animal 
at his farm for two years and a half previous to the sale, and had 
used her for riding, driving, and occasionally hunting, and he had 
never found any symptoms of roaring, whistling, or bad wind. 
Mr. Wilstrop, Nun Appleton, farmer, the former owner of the 
mare, proved that she was sound when he sold her to Mr. Hart. 
Mr. Jepson, veterinary surgeon, Bishop Wilton, said the disease 
could not exist without detection by any person who understood 
horses; it was a disease which might arise in a fortnight. 
Mr. G. Sutton, veterinary surgeon, York, gave corroborative 
evidence. 
His Honour ruled that the £17 claimed for keep could not he 
maintained after allowing such a lapse of time without giving notice, 
and that the charges for the sale of the horse by the auctioneer, and 
the veterinary’s fee, should be deducted from the net proceeds of 
sale. He told the jury the question for them to decide was whether 
the mare was sound or not at the time of sale. 
Tiie Jury, after a short consultation, returned a verdict for the 
defendant. 
CRUELTY TO A HORSE. 
John Luff, farmer, of East Brent, Somerset, was summoned for 
causing and procuring to be ill-treated, a certain hprse, and George 
Mogg was summoned for cruelly using ^ horse, the property of the 
aforesaid John Luff. Both defendants pleaded guilty to the 
charge. 
Inspector Choyce, of the Royal Society for the Prevention of 
Cruelty to Animals, said although defendants had pleaded guilty, it 
would be as well to state the facts of the case. It appeared that 
some time prior to October 4th, a mare, the property of Luff, met 
with an accident by which the small bone of the foot was broken. 
The animal was turned into a paddock, where it remained until the 
4th of October, when it was ordered to be removed to another field, 
a distance of some three miles. Whilst Mogg was driving the 
horse to the other paddock, walking on three legs, a gentleman 
