686 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
but was strained in the back sinews, and if he (the plaintiff) would allow 
it to be bled it would be ready for work in a day or two. On the 8th 
April Proctor violently purged the animal, which in consequence could 
not stand steady, but trembled violently all over the body. Next day 
plaintiff spoke to Proctor, and asked him who had given him orders to 
purge the horse. Proctor replied that he did not know he had done 
anything wrong. Plaintiff then told him that whenever he required a 
veterinary surgeon Mr. Thomas Collins was employed by him. On the 
next day he called Mr. Collins in to examine the horse, and he pro¬ 
nounced the opinion that its life could not be saved. The horse died on 
the 10th April. 
Evidence was then given by Mr. Collins and Mr. S. P. Fallding, 
M.B.C.V.S., to show that the horse had died from lockjaw, consequent 
upon the shoeing operation, which had been unskilfully performed, and 
by which a nail was driven into the sensitive laminae. 
For the defence Mr. Proctor was called. He denied that the shoeing 
had anything to do with the cause of death, and that the animal had died 
from fracture of the bone of the leg. The man who had shod the horse 
had been in his employ for twenty years, and he was a skilled person. 
His Honour asked if it was part of a farrier’s duty to give physic. De¬ 
fendant. —Yes. In answer to Mr. Berry, defendant said he purged the 
horse with aconite and prussic acid, giving it ten degrees of the first, and 
two doses of the latter. 
Isaac Pitsey, blacksmith, in the employ of the defendant, said he had 
bled and shod the horse in the usual way, and did not prick it to his 
knowledge. When brought to the stables it stood badly on the off fore foot. 
Mr. William Broughton, veterinary surgeon, Leeds, said there was 
sufficient evidence to show that there had been fracture of the pastern- 
bone during the life of the horse, and that this had resulted in tetanus 
or lockjaw and its ultimate death. 
Mr. Cuthbert , veterinary surgeon, said he was of opinion that the frac¬ 
ture had taken place after death. 
Mr. Carter, veterinary surgeon, said he was inclined to think that 
the fracture had taken place during life. There was such an amount of 
inflammation evident on the bone that—no matter what had been 
done when the horse was being shoed—unless there had been a fracture 
during the life of the horse, it could not have been in such a state. He 
had no doubt there was sufficient inflammation to account for death. At 
the suggestion of his Honour the bone (produced) was again cut and ex¬ 
amined by Mr. Fallding and Mr. Carter. 
The first-named witness stated that there was evidence from the 
examination which had been made that the fracture had taken place 
since the death of the horse. The limb was perfectly healthy, and 
showed no sign of inflammation. Mr. Carter stated that he was still of 
the same opinion, that the limb had been fractured before death. Mr. 
Proctor, on being re-called, said that he considered the horse was worth 
£15 or £16. 
Mr. Gane having summed up the case and Mr. Berry addressed the 
jury, His Honour also summed up. He said the questions he wished the 
jury to answer were these:—(1) Was the horse pricked in shoeing ? (2) 
Was the tetanus caused by the pricking? (3) Was the death so caused 
attributable to want of ordinary care and skill on the part of the defendant 
or his servant, or either of them. 
The jury found that the death of the horse had been caused by 
pricking, and they were of opinion that sufficient care had not been 
taken in the treatment of the horse. 
