534 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
then proceeded to describe the disease (the sheep-scab), pointing out the 
malignant nature of the same, and the necessity of isolating diseased 
animals for lengthened periods. He next proceeded to detail the facts 
of the case before the Bench, and pointed out that the inspector of the 
district was the officer certainly included amongst those who might sus¬ 
pect the animals of disease. Correspondence was then referred to 
between Mr. Cooper, solicitor to the Local Authority, and the Earl of 
Leicester, and finally he pointed out the reason of the prosecution, the 
Local Authority feeling it their bounden duty to prosecute quite irre¬ 
spective of individuals. 
Mr. E. Case, veterinary surgeon, said—I am inspector of the district 
in which Holkham is situated. I am the only inspector. In the autumn 
of last year I received a notice from Ereemer, Lord Leicester’s steward. 
I went there on November 9th, and found 1819 sheep in Lord Leicester’s 
possession. There were about 100 in the yards. I found the sheep in 
the yards and on the farm diseased. I gave notice for the sheep to be 
dressed. I went again on November 30th. I found one of them in a 
field in the park. 1 asked for no further animals, one being sufficient to 
affect the flock. I went again on the 24th with Professor Axe. Mr. 
Freemer, the steward, was there, and Mr. Shellabear, the agent. The 
professor came at Lord Leicester’s request. He was quite of my opinion. 
On January 28th I again went. I found a sheep there still suffering with 
the disease. Finding one, I did not look further. On February 25th I 
went again, and found another one in a fold in the park field still affected. 
It was not a bad case, but there could be no doubt about it. There was 
just one spot behind the shoulders. There was a man at the fold. I 
did not show him the spot. Mr. Freemer bad asked for a certificate of 
removal. I told the shepherd and also Mr. Freemer that I could not 
grant it, as one sheep was diseased. I gave a certificate to that effect. 
On March ?th I made a report to the Local Authority of hearing of the 
removal of the sheep. His lordship was not right in supposing that I 
wanted to put him to any unnecessary trouble. I simply did my duty as 
I should to any farmer in the neighbourhood. 
By Mr. Chittock —I examined some sheep of Mr. Cornish’s in February. 
He lives at Walsingham. There were about ninety-eight sheep. I found 
some diseased. I directed them to be removed from the others. I gave 
on order for removal in about six weeks. It is false to say I did so in 
the week. I make memoranda in my pocket book. On looking I 
find I did not make an entry as I thought. It must have been made in 
some other book. I believe four of Mr. Cornish’s sheep were slaughtered. 
I swear it was more than a month after when I allowed the sheep to be 
removed. At Holkham the sheep in the fieldwere some three quarters 
of a mile from those in the yards. Those in the field were shut in with 
wire netting. That might cause a pulling of the wool. I found one 
diseased ; that satisfied me. On November 30th I found one in a field. 
They had been dressed, but not long enough to know whether it was 
done effectually. I said that the best thing to be done was to remove 
the diseased ones from the others. On December 24th I went with 
Professor Axe from the Royal Agricultural Society. Mr. Woods, from 
Merton, was also there. The professor did not decline to give an opinion. 
He took a portion of the scab to London to examine it microscopically 
to satisfy Lord Leicester. Professor Axe did not say the disease was 
in a very mild form. I did not hear Mr. Woods say so. On Decembei* 
24th I did not look at those in the field at all, I did not think it was 
necessary. On January 28th I found one sheep in the fold with the scab. 
The fold was in the field. I told the man the best thing he could do was 
