60 
Veterinary Jurisprudence. 
SOUTH LANCASHIRE ASSIZES. 
nisi rmus court — Dec. 14. 
Before Mr. Justice Williams. 
CLAIM AGAINST A VETERINARY PRACTITIONER, 
Armitage v. Ward. 
The plaintiff in this case was Joshua Armitage, a yarn agent, residing 
in Blackburn, and the defendant was William Ward, a veterinary practi¬ 
tioner, carrying on business in the same town. The action was brought 
to recover the value of a valuable cart-horse belonging to the plaintiff, 
which had died, owing, it was alleged, to the negligence of the de¬ 
fendant. Mr. Attorney-General James, Q.C., and Mr. Torr appeared 
for the plaintiff, and Mr. Temple, Q.C., and Mr. Kaye appeared on be¬ 
half of the defendant. 
The Attorney-General, in opening the case, said the action was brought 
to recover the damages which had been sustained by reason of the de¬ 
fendant’s careless and improper treatment of a valuable cart-horse which 
had been entrusted to his care by the plaintiff. In the month of Sep¬ 
tember last the horse had been some short time in the possession of the 
plaintiff, who had given fifty guineas for it. The horse was at this time 
taken ill, and it was sent on a Saturday to the defendant’s stable, where 
it was put in a loose box, with the view to its treatment. From that 
time down to five o’clock on the Sunday nothing whatever was done to 
the horse. The result was, that the horse became much worse, and 
other medical men had to be called in. The horse, however, had gone 
quite beyond recovery, and it died of tetanus, or lock-jaw, on the follow¬ 
ing Friday at noon. The complaint against the defendant was, that 
the horse had not been treated in sufficient time, and that it had been 
allowed to have hay, corn, and bran—food which, it was said, was highly 
improper for a horse suffering from tetanus. The defendant did attend 
his place of business on the Saturday afternoon, but the Attorney-General 
was afraid that he was not then in a condition in which a medical man, 
whether for the human subject, or for the lower animals, ought to be. 
He went into his own surgery, and attended to himself; he was not, and 
Could not be roused by his men. The horse was not attended to that 
night. It seemed that the defendant, supposing the horse to be suffering 
from sore throat, applied a blister. 
Mr. Buckley , veterinary surgeon, carrying on business at Blackburn, 
deposed that the horse died of tetanus, produced by a prick of the foot. 
He was called in to see the horse on the Sunday afternoon, and seeing the 
defendant, he asked him if he was going to continue his treatment of the 
horse, when Ward said he had a relative’s funeral to attend on the 
following day, and he could not attend to the horse. In cross-examina¬ 
tion the witness said he had examined the horse at Lytham fair before 
the plaintiff purchased it. He examined it for some gentlemen, who 
thought of purchasing it, but he advised them not to do so, because he 
thought it might ultimately go lame. It was suffering from a slight 
