“ EVIDENCE IN HORSE CASES.” 23 
“surgeon to the Prince of Wales/’ but stated, as the fact 
was, that he had been employed by his Royal Highness for 
sixteen years. Mr. Dollar did not represent himself to be a 
member of any college, but stated that he had obtained his 
certificate, enabling him to practise as a veterinary surgeon, 
from the Highland and Agricultural Society of Scotland in 
1851 ; that for seventeen years he had been an examiner on 
the Veterinary Board of that Society, and for the last ten 
years had been President of the Practical Section of that 
Board, and had practised with success as a veterinary surgeon 
in London for the last twenty-five years. 
These statements appearing in the Veterinarian are so 
worded as to affect Mr. Dollar most injuriously in his pro¬ 
fession and in the opinion of those who are not aware of his 
qualification. 
On behalf of my client I must request you to insert this 
letter in a conspicuous part of your next number, accom¬ 
panied by a retraction of, and an apology for, the unfounded 
and libellous statements to which your report in the Veteri¬ 
narian has given publicity. 
I have the honour to remain, 
Gentlemen, 
Your obedient servant, 
26, Charles Street, Lovel Keays. 
St. James’s Square; 
10 th December , 1878. 
[We very willingly insert the above letter, although we 
fail to see anything either libellous or untrue in the words 
to which it refers. Mr. Dollar is well known as a respect¬ 
able veterinary practitioner, and in admitting the article 
from a correspondent we had no intention of doing him any 
dishonour. According to the Charter granted to the Royal 
College of Veterinary Surgeons no one is entitled to call 
himself a veterinary surgeon unless he has undergone an 
examination by that body and holds a diploma, which Mr. 
Dollar does not. Nevertheless, we did not insert the letter 
to give prominence to this fact, but to draw attention to 
remarkable differences of opinion existing among professional 
witnesses.— Eds.] 
