VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
539 
was prepared with witnesses to prove that the horse when he bought it 
had a discharge from both nostrils, and an enlargement beneath the eye 
on the right side of the face. That such enlargement was due to a kick 
received some months ago. That the discharge only occurred at times, 
and then chiefly after exercise. That the animal had regularly worked 
the whole of the time. Other animals had stood in the same stable 
with it, drank out of the same pail, and ate out of the same manger. 
Also, that the veterinary inspector examined it in a very dark stable, 
that he did not bring it out into the light, and that he was not more than 
two minutes in making his examination. I was called in two days after 
it had been certified as affected with glanders to examine it (not having 
been informed of such previous examination) and I found not a single 
symptom to warrant such a conclusion. The general health was good, 
temperature 99°, pulse 42, no ulceration of the Schneiderian membrane, 
no enlargement of glands. The discharge was somewhat thick and of a 
yellowish-white appearance; it was intermittent and did not adhere to the 
nostrils. The animal ate and drank well, and in every respect was appa¬ 
rently free from constitutional disease. The defendant destroyed the horse 
against my wish, but under some misrepresentation or misapprehension 
from the local authority. A 'post-mortem examination of the head was made 
two days after the animal had been slaughtered, in the presence of Dr. 
Syson, medical officer of health, Mr. Reynolds, of Chatteris, M.R.C.V.S., 
and myself. The result of that examination was to convince us all without 
a shadow of a doubt that no single symptom of glanders had ever existed. 
The case was one of nasal gleet, which originated doubtless from a blow 
on the face, which caused the enlargement seen during life. An abscess 
had formed, which we found to contain nearly half a pint of matter. 
The abscess was of a chronic nature, in fact, a cess pit in the bone, lined 
with a pyogenic membrane, and with an overflow and discharge into the 
nostrils. 
Although the head, with the glands, &c., was in Court and ready to be 
produced on the defendant’s behalf, the Bench declined to allow it, 
but the evidence of a single veterinary inspector to be taken as final, 
although each and every statement, not only by theory, but by facts, 
could have been refuted. 
As I consider the decision of very great importance to the veterinary 
profession, I beg to ask you to report the case in the next issue of your 
valuable Journal, with such comments as you may consider the nature of 
the case demands. 
I may add that the head is still being preserved for any member of 
the profession to see. I am Sir 
Your obedient servant, 
Geo. Fowler M.R.C.Y.S. 
To the Editors of the ‘ Veterinarian 
Huntingdon Division Petty Sessions, June 7th. 
Before Rev. P. F. Rooper (in the chair), G. I. Bevan, B. Brown, 
P. E. Tillard, F. J. Howson, and A. W. Marshall, Esq. 
Thomas Brown , of Hartford, appeared to an adjourned summons as 
charging him with neglecting to give notice to the police that his horse 
was affected with glanders. 
Mr. TV. A. Watts , of St. Ives, appeared for the defendant. 
Chief Su'perintendant Marson was resworn, and said that after he re¬ 
ceived the certificate from Mr. Fordham, the veterinary inspector, he 
went to Mr. Brown’s. Defendant had been to the police station in 
