/ 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 685 
daub in the character, and there were plenty of white ones with black 
noses. In the course of the defendant’s evidence, his agent, Mr. Powell, 
Q.C., being dissatisfied with his refusal to give answers, withdrew from 
the case. The jury found for the plaintiff, damages £750. 
The Gloucester Journal , commenting on the case, gives expression to 
the following appropriate observations : 
“ Serious as the result of the action, both moral and material, may be 
to the defendant, the plaintiff suffers in a manner and to an extent which 
compels sympathy. Mr. Allsopp is well known to have spent many 
thousands of pounds in maintaining the purity of shorthorn breeding, 
and great credit is due to him for the public spirit he has shown in this 
matter. Even as the winner of the action, he stands to lose a consider¬ 
able amount, for a portion of his outlay, at least, will be irrecoverable 
from the defendant; but he also has to bear indirect consequences of 
the fraudulent pedigree and the taint thereby introduced amongst his 
famous herd. The female progeny of ‘ Grand Patriot 2d 5 were mated 
with Mr. Allsopp’s two thousand-guinea bull, and ought therefore to 
have produced first-class and very valuable stock, had their pedigree 
been untainted on the mother’s side ; but when the spuriousness of the 
grandsire’s pedigree was discovered he was at once turned into butcher’s 
meat, and a similar fate awaits all his produce, a destiny which involves 
the ultimate loss of several thousands of pounds. Besides this, it will 
take from twelve to fifteen years thoroughly to eradicate the taint from 
Mr. Allsopp’s herd; and it was only by adopting the rigorous and costly 
expedient of extermination that the absolute purity of the herd could be 
re-established.” 
CLAIM AGAINST A FARRIER—CONFLICTING EVIDENCE. 
Bedford County Court. 
William Kay, coal merchant, of Girlington, sued a farrier, named 
James Proctor, of Thornton Road, for the recovery of £45, being 
the value of a horse which it was alleged the defendant had killed by 
negligent, unskilful, and improper shoeing, and subsequent ill-treat¬ 
ment? Mr. Berry appeared for the plaintiff, and the defendant was 
represented by Mr. L. Gane, barrister. 
It appeared that the horse in question being in need of shoeing was 
taken to the defendant’s place, where one of the defendant’s men shod 
it. On the following day, the 27th March, the plaintiff noticed that it 
was going lame, and he ordered his driver to get it examined, as he 
thought it had been pricked. The animal was treated by the defendant, 
but its condition grew so dangerous that Mr. Thomas Collins, veteri¬ 
nary surgeon, was called in. He pronounced that its recovery was im¬ 
possible,°and in a few days the animal died. The plaintiff, in giving 
evidence, stated that on the 25th March he sent the horse to get shod. 
He had had the hoarse five years, and it was three years old when he 
purchased it for £50. Its value had depreciated only £5 in the mean¬ 
time, and it had always been sound and healthy. On the 27th March he 
sent the horse to get shod, and on the following day he noticed it 
was going lame, and he ordered the carter to take it to be examined, as 
he thought it had been pricked. Some time afterwards, the horse 
orowin 0- worse, he ordered it to be taken into the stables. The 
defendant had seen it in the meantime, and said it had not been pricked 
