VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
223 
value of the colt which was destroyed through the defendant’s 
maltreatment. The operation was performed on Tuesday, and 
the animal died on the following Sunday. 
The learned counsel, however, agreed on the value of the horse 
at £45. 
The evidence was chiefly of a technical nature. The plain¬ 
tiff said he had two colts upon which the defendant had to 
operate. In the course of the operation hot irons were neces¬ 
sary, and the plaintiff stated that the iron used for the first horse 
became loose m the handle through overheating. To tighten it 
the defendant struck it against the animal’s thigh. In the case 
of the second colt, which was the subject of the action, it ran 
away whilst the defendant was operating on the first. When 
caught it was very hot, but notwithstanding that he proceeded 
with his task although the plaintiff told him it was unfit for it. 
After the operation bleeding set in, which defendant attempted 
to stop by applying tow and puff-ball. Defendant ordered that 
it should be bathed, and plaintiff kept men at work bathing it day 
and night till it died. 
Cross-examined by Mr. Bulwer: The first colt was operated 
upon successfully. The same appliances and process was adopted 
for that as for the one which died. 
Mr. James Bolton, veterinary surgeon, Messing, said the mode 
of procedure adopted by the defendant was one of the recognised 
plans. He, however, stated that the operation should not be 
performed whilst the horse was heated. Defendant was also to 
blame in leaving whilst the animal was bleeding, which ought to 
have been arrested by cauterising with a hot iron. The witness 
condemned the course pursued by the defendant to stop the 
haemorrhage. Puncturing the swollen parts, particularly the 
under portion of the abdomen subsequently with a needle, was so 
highly objectionable that he thought no one outside a lunatic 
asylum would have recourse to such a thing. 
The witness underwent a severe cross-examination, which 
very materially lessened the value of his evidence. 
Mr. Peter Stalker Cowan , veterinary surgeon, Colchester, 
criticised the propriety of operating whilst an animal was heated 
from muscular exertion, and gave evidence as to the proper mode 
of procedure. 
Mr. Bulwer , in addressing the jury for the defence, said he 
had felt great anxiety, not for the sake of the paltry £45, but for 
the sake of the character and livelihood of his client. The defen¬ 
dant stood charged, not merely with gross want of skill and gross 
neglect, but with downright cruelty to a dumb animal. But 
that accusation Was not the suggestion of Serjeant Ballantine, or 
even the solicitor who instructed him, but of the plaintiff him¬ 
self; and the same spirit that prompted him to make those 
accusations and imputations against as honorable a man as 
himself had characterised his evidence. Mr. Bulwer then 
addressed himself to the facts, and contejided that what was done 
