540 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
the mean time. He told defendant that he would be summoned. De¬ 
fendant then said that Mr. Fordham had told him the horse was suffering 
from glanders. He (witness) should not consider that a notice. 
Mr. F. B. Fordham, the veterinary inspector, was about to be sworn, 
when Mr. Watts remarked he presumed that by calling him the certi¬ 
ficate was set aside. 
After the magistrates had considered the point, the chairman remarked 
that they hardly considered it was a certificate, but at the same time 
they did not see the necessity for a certificate at all, as Mr. Fordham 
might be called in evidence. 
Mr. Fordham was then sworn, and deposed that he saw defendant’s horse 
on Wednesday, May 28th, at the request of Superintendent Marson. He 
examined it and found it suffering from glanders. He had no doubt 
about it. 
Cross-examined. —He based his views on the character of the discharge 
from the nostrils and the enlargement of the near side glands. His 
examination took about ten minutes. The stable was not dark when the 
door was open. He examined the nostrils, glands, and the head gene¬ 
rally. He examined it partly in the stable and partly outside. He 
perceived an enlargement of the bones on the off side of the head, but 
the wound there would not produce such a discharge as he saw on the 
aear side. It was purulent matter, and was rather streaked with blood. 
It was not flowing when he saw it, but was adhering to the lining of the 
membrane. He did not test the discharge. He should call it a case of 
acute glanders. Cases of this kind do not all die in a few days, or else 
there would be no cases of chronic glanders. He did not test the tempera¬ 
ture of the animal. The coat was rough and unhealthy looking and the 
eyes were dull. He got some of the discharge upon his hand, but did not 
wash for about a quarter of an hour. Glanders is a most contagious dis¬ 
ease, but there would be no fear of his catching the contagion if he had no 
abrasion of the skin. The horse was not suffering from farcy. If it had 
been suffering from glanders for six weeks he should call it a chronic case. 
Acute glanders is generally fatal in seven days. He considered there 
was ulceration of the Schneiderian membrane. He had been told that 
there had been a post-mortem examination of the head of the animal. 
The appearances would not be the same in all eases, but he should find 
disease of the lining membrane of the nostrils and disease of some part of 
the bones. The glands would be indurated. The normal temperature 
of the horse would be 92°, and if suffering from acute glanders it would be 
100°. It was a case in which he should advise|the horse being slaughtered. 
A wound under the eye might produce a discharge from the nostrils. 
To the Bench. —He should think the horse had been suffering from 
glanders more than a week. The question of the admissibility of rebut¬ 
ting evidence was then discussed, and the chairman, remarked that the 
Bench were of opinion that as by the Act the certificate of the inspector 
was conclusive there, a fortiori his evidence would be conclusive also. 
Mr. Watts argued that the certificate was intended to be conclusive until 
rebutting evidence was called. Although the Act says the certificate is 
conclusive, yet it was never intended to revert to the old days of the 
Star Chamber, when a charge was made against a man and he had no 
opportunity of refuting it. There must be proof on the part of the 
prosecution that the defendant had knowledge of the disease and this 
would entitle him to bring rebutting evidence. It would be proved that 
the horse never had glanders at all, and the inspector had made a mistake. 
The animal had actually been on the premises of one of the magistrates 
then sitting on the Bench. (The magistrate : not with his permission). 
