62 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
Articles twenty-three, twenty-four, twenty-five, twenty- 
seven twenty-nine, thirty-two, and thirty-three 
(general provisions). 
(b.) The Cleansing and Disinfection Order of 1878— 
Articles ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen, and fourteen 
(cleansing and disinfection). 
7. A Local Authority shall cause all swine affected with 
typhoid fever to be slaughtered, and shall, out of the local rate, pay 
to the owner thereof, by way of compensation for every head of 
swine so slaughtered, one half of its value immediately before it 
became so affected, but so that the compensation do not in any 
case exceed forty shillings. 
8. No swine shall be moved out of a pig-stye, shed, or place 
where typhoid fever exists, or has within six days existed, except 
for the purpose of being slaughtered, and with a licence of the 
Local Authority. That licence shall be available for twelve 
hours and no longer, and shall specify the place to which the 
swine are to be moved for slaughter. The swine shall be moved 
to that place under the direction and in charge of an Inspector 
or other officer of the Local Authority, w r ho shall enforce and 
superintend the immediate slaughter there of the swine, and 
shall report the fact of the slaughter to the Local Authority. 
9. Where a head of swine is seized in accordance with the 
provisions of Article 19 of The Animals Order of 1878 the same 
shall be slaughtered in accordance with the provisions of this 
Order. C. L. PEEL. 
Veterinary Jurisprudence. 
PBOFESSIONAL PEES. . 
Court of Queen’s Bench. 
November ‘I'lth, 1878. 
Before Mr. Justice Mellor and a Common Jury. 
PRITCHARD V. m’hAHON. 
Although the amount sought to be recovered in this action 
was small, the question raised is of considerable public impor¬ 
tance, being whether a witness who attends in obedience to his 
subpoena is entitled to remuneration for his loss of time as dis¬ 
tinguished from his expenses. 
Mr. Murphy, Q.C., and Mr. Jervis appeared for the plaintiff; 
Mr. Gully, Q.C., for the defendant. 
The plaintiff is a veterinary surgeon and a Professor of the 
