222 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
venting animals exhibited at other shows within a month previous 
to the Smithfield Club’s Show, shall not be in operation any 
longer; but that the following be continued as heretofore :— 
“ 3. That the exhibitor shall send with each animal a certificate 
that it has not been, for fourteen days previous to its leaving 
home for the Smithfield Club’s Show, in contact with any animal 
suffering from contagious or infectious disease. No animal will 
be admitted without this certificate.” 
“ 4. That all animals undergo a veterinary examination previous 
to being admitted at the doors of the Agricultural Hall; and 
that suitable covering be constructed over the outer yard to enable 
this to be properly carried out.” 
Veterinary Jurisprudence. 
ALLEG-ED NEGLIGENCE IN A VETEEINAEY 
OPEEATION. 
Suffolk Assizes—Ipswich, Fel. 14 th .— (Before Lord 
Justice Cotton.) 
SMITH V. MARKING. 
This was a special jury case, the claim being for the value of 
a stallion colt, alleged to have been destroyed through the negli¬ 
gence of the defendant.—Serjeant Ballantine and Mr. Jones 
appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Bulwer, Q.C., and Mr. Digby 
appeared for the defendant. 
Mr. Jones opened the pleadings, from w r hich it appeared that 
the plaintiff, Benjamin Smith, lives at Great Pagley, near Stam- 
bourne, Essex, and the defendant, Charles Marking, carries on 
the business of a veterinary surgeon at Toppesfield. The action 
was to recover a sum of money for negligence in performing the 
operation of castration upon a colt. The statement of defence 
denied that there was any unskilfulness in his treatment, or any 
neglect, and alleging that the injury was caused by the plaintiff. 
Serjeant Ballantine , in opening the case, said that it involved 
details of a technical and exceedingly disagreeable nature. It 
was necessary to perform certain operations on horses for the 
purpose of making them more useful to mankind, but if they were 
to be performed, it should be done with all mercy and feeling 
towards the animal which was to be subjected to such a fearful 
and cruel ordeal. The charge against the defendant was that so 
far from considering these feelings, and applying the skill which 
ought to be applied in such a case, he exhibited the grossest want 
of skill, and the most flagrant negligence and cruelty, which, if 
it was described to the jury as it was to him, it would pretty well 
make one’s blood run cold. If the jury were agreed as to the 
facts of the case, all they would have to do was to consider the 
