VETERINARY BENEVOLENT AND MUTUAL DEFENCE SOCIETY. 315 
generous conduct; but we have rules to direct the office bearers. 
The person named was not a member of our Society; but if you 
think you can conscientiously bestow a charity, I commend it to 
your notice and kind consideration. I know that I shall be met 
with an answer, that we must be guided by the rules. I know 
that; but I do think that the bestowal of a charity in a good 
cause and to a professional brother in need will redound to our 
honour, and carry into the ranks of our profession who are not 
members of our body a salutary feeling to join such a good and 
noble society. 
Respecting the defence branch of our National Society—the 
industrial part of our Society—industry is a noble thing, being 
the energetic engagement of the body and mind in useful 
employment. Even benevolence depends on industry. Labour 
with your hands at the things that are good, that you may have 
to give to those that need it—therefore you can see how har¬ 
moniously the two branches of the Society work together for 
each other’s mutual advantage. Your office bearers and council 
have had arduous, difficult, and delicate duties to perform since 
we last met. Here in Liverpool, we attended many times 
and arbritated two large claims, and settled them at a cost to the 
Defence Society of £66 12s. At the close of last year’s, we 
visited Middlesborough and Leeds three times, and defended 
a case in the County Court at Leeds, and this case cost us 
£38 18s. 4d., making a total cost for the three actions defended 
by this Society of £105 10s. 4d. The Leeds case was peculiar 
and intricate, you will have seen it in our veterinary journals, 
and one which places upon record that a professional man is 
considered an expert in that particular branch of science he 
represents, and is actionable at law for a su n of money, if he 
conscientiously gives an opinion, which would be at variance 
with two of his brother experts. We have an able and judicious 
member in our Council who considered that we were entitled to 
our opinion, and unless it could be proved that carelessness or 
negligence were used in coming to that opinion, he had a right 
to give it, and would not be actionable at a court of law, but this 
case proves that opinion to be fallacious, and although we lost the 
case, the plaintiff sued for the sum of £50, he only got a verdict 
for £15, and although we feel a little humiliated, we were not 
disgraced or dishonoured as the learned judge exonerated the 
professional man from all impure and unjust motives. A great 
number of other cases have been arranged and settled by the 
tact and wisdom of your office bearers and council, and a many 
cases have had our united opinion upon the advisability of coming 
to an amicable settlement or what we considered the most pru¬ 
dent course to pursue ; although not members of our Society, I 
cannot speak too highly of the great and efficient services given 
by my brother office bearers, and by the kind, attentive, and in¬ 
telligent manner your council have bestowed on all cases brought 
before them, and with what care they guarded the interests of 
