252 
Veterinary Jurisprudence. 
WARWICKSHIRE LENT ASSIZES.— Warwick, March 2nd, 1864. 
Before Mr. Justice Blackburn and a Common Jury. 
Thompson v. Hewitt. 
Mr. Macaulay, Q,. C., and Mr. Beasley, instructed by Mr. Dickinson, 
were for the plaintiff, Mr. Serjeant O’Brien and Mr. Brooke, instructed 
by Mr. Douglas, were for the defendant. This action was brought by 
Mr. William Thompson, horse-dealer, of Manchester, to recover the sum 
of £54 17s. 6(7., being the amount of loss he had sustained by a horse 
which he had purchased from Mr. Charles Hewitt, farmer and horse- 
dealer, of Draughton, Northampton, at the Rugby horse fair, November 
18th, 1862. 
The plaintiff and Mr. W. Humphreys, a shoeing smith of considerable 
experience, proved the horse to be lame on the day after he got home; 
that there was nothing to be seen to account for the lameness. 
Mr. Goodier, a horse-dealer of considerable experience, also proved that 
he was lame on the 28th of November. 
Mr. Frederic Mitchel, plaintiff’s stepson, gave evidence to having written 
several letters to the defendant, at the dictation of the plaintiff. 
Mr. Lawson , V.'jS., examined by Mr. Beaseley , then gave evidence as 
follows : 
I am a veterinary surgeon, carrying on business at Manchester. Iam a 
member of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. I am also a member 
of the Court of Examiners, and of the Council. I have had considerable ex¬ 
perience and education in the diseases of horses. I have been in business 
myself practically for twenty-six years. On the 19th of December, 1862, at 
the request of the plaintiff, Mr. Thompson, I examined a chestnut gelding. 
The horse was brought to me, and I examined him at that time. I found 
him lame of the near fore-foot. I believe the cause of that lameness to 
be navicular disease. I directed poultices to be applied. I do not know 
whether my recommendation was followed. I saw the horse again on 
the 2nd of March, but I also saw him in the interim. He had bron¬ 
chitis in the interim. He was brought to me with bronchitis, on the 21st of 
January, and remained until the 25th of February. He was very ill indeed 
while with me. He got quite well of that attack, and was sent back again. 
Are you correct in your date as to the 21st of January that he came to 
you with bronchitis?—Unless I have made some mistake—it might 
have been a little earlier than that. It may have been a mistake of mine 
in taking it from my book. 
Mr. Justice Blackburn: You have not brought your book here?—No, 
my lord, I have not. 
Mr. Beaseley: At all events it was some little time after you. examined 
him in November ?—I am quite sure of that. I believe he had some 
treatment for cold before he came to stay with me. I believe I must 
have seen him then ; I am not quite sure about it—I believe so—I 
think so. He got well of this bronchitis, and was sent back again. I 
examined him again on the 2nd of March, with reference to the foot; 
that was at the request of Mr. Thompson, the plaintiff. He was still 
lame then of the same foot. I gave my certificate then. My opinion 
was more confirmed that it was navicular disease that he was lame from. 
