538 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
removed. On March 1st a certificate was given to Lord Leicester by 
Mr. Hamond, one of the Local Authority’s officers, a most competent 
man, stating that there was no disease amongst the animals, how then 
could he suspect disease, and why should he hold them to please Mr. 
Case ? They were sold to Plattin, delivery at fold ; they were then at 
Plattin’s risk, they were his property, and Lord Leicester had nothing 
more to do with them. Plattin picked out|the sheep, his man drove them 
away, and if any person drove them or caused them to be driven, being 
diseased (which he denied), Plattin was the man. This might be called a 
technical point. He was instructed not to employ technicalities, but his 
friend Mr. Blofeld had tried to close his mouth by a certificate which he 
put in, and, therefore, he (Mr. Chittock) should certainly most strongly 
insist upon this point. The sheep were not the property of the defendant, 
but of Mr. Plattin, the dealer. Even assuming the animals were 
diseased, there was nothing in the law to prevent the sale of them on 
defendant’s own land. Further, Mr. Case had been acting under the old 
Act, and did not appear to know that his authority was not required to 
sell the sheep. Under the old Act it was, but now they were only pro¬ 
hibited from moving them along a public highway. He further contended 
that the certificate put in by Mr. Blofeld, being the certificate of a 
veterinary surgeon, and to be taken as conclusive evidence, did not apply 
to the charge against his client. He further contended that by the Act 
his client, not knowing of the disease, and not being able, by exercising 
reasonable diligence, to ascertain the fact (if it existed) there was no 
longer any offence committed. Further, he was able to trace the ninety 
sheep up to the present moment, and no sign of disease had ever shown itself. 
Alluding to orders of the Local Authority, he drew attention to one, 
which said that any person in posession of a diseased animal, or suspected 
of being diseased, should give information to the inspector, arguing 
therefrom that it was not the inspector, but the owner who must have the 
suspicion. He then proceeded to quote one or two cases bearing on 
the point, and concluded a long and very clever address by appealing to 
the Bench to treat his client the same as any other defendant, as Lord 
Leicester wished not to evade the law, but to set the example of sub¬ 
mission thereto. 
Eor the defence several witnesses were called, including Mr. H. 
Woods, of Merton, a well-known authority on all matters relating to 
sheep, and who had examined the sheep; Joseph Bailey, the shepherd; 
Mr. J. Hamond, of Bale, Veterinary Inspector for the Holt District; 
Mr. Clapham, and other persons who bought the sheep—all of whom 
stated that the sheep were not diseased. The Earl of Leicester also gave 
evidence, and said—I authorised Freemer my steward, to sell the sheep 
in consequence of my own knowledge and Mr. Hamond’s report. I had 
not the slightest suspicion of any disease whatever existing in my sheep 
on March 3rd last. Had I inspected one sheep I would not have allowed 
any to be sold. 
The Bench retired, and, on their readmission, said they had decided to 
dismiss the case, because the defendant had satisfied them that he did 
not inspect the animals removed. Each side would pay their own costs.— 
Norwich Mercury. 
THE CASE OF GLANDERS AT HERTFORD. 
June 12th, 1879. 
Sir, —I beg to forward you the report a case that was tried here 
on the 7th inst. The only comments I need make 4 are, that the defendant 
