VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
304 
be merely cold, and the defendant had sent the horse out on his 
recommendation .—His Honour remarked that it was a very singular 
case of doctors differing. 
After Mr. Watson had replied on the case, the Judge proceeded 
to sum up, commenting on the evidence at considerable length. 
He submitted the following four questions to the jury :—1. Was the 
mare suffering under this disease, when turned into the plaintiff’s 
field, to the knowledge of the defendant; 2. Did defendant represent 
to plaintiff’s man Denison, before the mare was turned into the 
field, that she had only a cold; 3. Did he believe such repre¬ 
sentation to be true, and had he reasonable ground for such belief ; 
4. Was he guilty of negligence in turning the mare into the field 
under all the circumstances of the case?—After a consultation of 
about a quarter of an hour’s duration, the Jury returned an answer 
in the affirmative to all the questions, being, therefore, a verdict for 
the plaintiff.—In answer to his Honour, the Foreman said they had 
considered the question of damages, and thought that they should 
be £25.—A verdict for plaintiff, damages £25, was therefore 
entered .—Bradford Observer. 
POISONING OF SHEEP BY YEW. 
A curious question in the law of landlord and tenant has arisen 
in a case in the Rolls Court. The plaintiff, Mr. Thomas Bennett 
Babraham, Cambridge, a tenant, claimed £580 10s. for a number of 
sheep and lambs and a steer and three cows, which he alleged to 
have been poisoned through the default of his landlord Mr. Adeane. 
The question between the parties then resolved itself into two issues 
of fact and law respectively—the first being as to whether the death 
of the animals had been caused in the way alleged by the plaintiff, 
and the second as to whether, in that case, there was any violation 
of duty on the part of the defendant. The plaintiff’s case was that 
early in the spring of 1869 he lost thirty-six lambing ewes out of a 
flock of 250, and about 100 lambs owing to the ewes browsing on 
the yew trees at the side of one of the plantations on the farm ; that 
in October, 1869, he lost 105 hoggets through their eating the 
clippings off the yew trees. The steer and the cows had been ex¬ 
amined post mortem by a veterinary surgeon, and it was admitted 
that their deaths were caused by eating yew; but the sheep had not 
been so examined, though it was proved that some of them were 
seen to browse off the yew, and their deaths resembled deaths by 
poisoning. On the other hand, the yew trees had been there for 
years, and no sheep on the farm had ever died from eating yew 
before, but then it was not shown that the sheep on the farm had 
ever eaten yew before the occasion in question. On the point of 
law it was argued on behalf of the defendant that it was too broad 
a proposition that knowledge of possible mischief should be imputed 
under the circumstances, as that would make a man responsible for 
every mischief he occasioned, however involuntarily or even uncon- 
