224 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
on this occasion was what was done on every other occasion, and 
what was proper and right. As to the alleged neglect, the de¬ 
fendant attended and saw the colt every day, and did all he could 
for it; and the death of the animal was caused by the plaintiff’s 
improper treatment of it after the operation in opposition to the 
directions of the defendant. He (Mr. Bulwer) would now call 
the “lunatics”—(laughter)—gentlemen of experience, and after 
they had heard their evidence, he hoped the jury would say this 
was an unworthy attempt to ruin the defendant’s character. 
The Defendant was called, and described his course of proce¬ 
dure. He denied the allegation that he knocked the iron on the 
horse to tighten the handle: he tapped it on a pail. From be¬ 
ginning to end he treated the colt in a scientific way, and accord¬ 
ing to the practice of the best authorities. 
In cross-examination he admitted that he had lost two colts 
after a similar operation from cold. He had also lost a few pigs 
and a bull. 
Mr. Thomas Avis , hospital surgeon at the Royal Veterinary 
College, London, said the defendant’s mode of procedure was 
correct. He attributed no ill-consequence to the fact that the 
horse was heated, and said that the puncturing of the swelling 
was quite right. 
At 6.20 the case was adjourned till 10.30 o’clock (Saturday) 
morning. 
This morning Frederick Golding, who has been in defendant’s 
service for two years, was called, and corroborated his master’s 
statement as to what was done on the afternoon the operation 
was performed. 
Mr. Wallis, veterinary surgeon, Halstead, said the defendant’s 
mode of operation and subsequent treatment were right. 
Mr. A. J. Shorten, veterinary surgeon, Ipswich, gave evidence 
to the same effect. He thought defendant adopted the only 
course he could to arrest the haemorrhage which supervened. 
Mr. Wright , veterinary surgeon, Ipswich, and Professor 
Pritchard, of the Royal Veterinary College, were also called, 
and gave evidence supporting the treatment adopted by the 
defendant. 
Mr. Bulwer and Serjeant Ballantine having replied, 
His Lordship summed up, leaving to the jury the question 
whether the death of the colt was caused by the negligence of 
the defendant, and, further, whether the treatment of the defen¬ 
dant led to its death. 
The jury, after a few minutes’ consultation, returned a verdict 
for the defendant. 
Judgment was given for the defendant with costs. 
Mr. Jones asked that execution might be stayed for a week. 
His Lordship saw no reason to comply with the application. 
