VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
259 
lias been of any long standing, they would expect the hoof to be con¬ 
tracted from the navicular disease more than from violent inflammation, 
much less than if the animal had it from hereditary cause or slow disease. 
Still they expect that there would be the external appearance. Further, 
they tell us that when the animal has been suffering long from this 
disease it acquires a habit—originally derived, no doubt, from feeling 
pain—of what they call pointing with the foot—standing, that is, in the 
way you would expect to find an animal that had got into the way of 
thinking that if he put down the foot he would feel pain, and which 
would show also that the animal had long sustained the pain. I think 
the doctors all agree in saying that the animal’s foot does not show now 
any external appearance of lameness, and they are not quite sure, but, 
I think, they also say that it does not show that appearance of pointing— 
Mr. Macaulay: —I think your lordship will find it is so—that they say 
it does. 
Mr. Justice Blackburn: —I do not think the evidence shows that it is 
pointed now. If you will call my attention, Mr. Macaulay, afterwards 
to the evidence of any witness you wish me to mention, I will do so. 
But the impression left on my mind—although there was not very much 
asked as to the pointing—is, that the plaintiff’s surgeons did not say it 
pointed now; and on the 7th the defendant’s surgeon says it did not, 
or that he did not see it point. Upon that there is an argument which 
makes both ways. The argument in favour of the plaintiff is this: as 
the foot is not contracted, and as there is no appearance of any violent 
inflammation, this disease cannot have been the result of accident, but 
must have been slow and chronic, continuing a long time. And, of course, 
if you believe that the lameness showed itself shortly after the sale, it will 
be for you to judge whether it was a slow, chronic disease. If you are 
satisfied that the surgeons are all right in saying that the non-contraction 
of the foot would show that it had not been owing to any acute accident, 
then of course the probability would be great that it had been unsound 
before the sale, if it showed shortly after the sale. On the other hand, the 
argument is used for the defendant—that same argument—that if it did not 
show itself, and had not contracted (they seem to say it has not even now— 
at all events it had not at that time), and if it did not really point on April 
7th—of course if it does not point now, the thing would be stronger; but 
if it did not show then, the inference would be, that the animal had not 
acquired the habit of thinking that that foot was the sore and tender foot, 
and conseqnently had not become accustomed to pointing the foot. There¬ 
fore if you suppose the symptoms of lameness not to have shown them¬ 
selves early, you would imply that the lameness had come after the sale. 
The first time the disease showed itself is a point of great importance in 
the case. As to that, the evidence is this:—the defendant tells you, and 
he calls his nephew to confirm him, that he had bought the horse in 
September, and had him thirteen months. During all that time he rode 
him, and his nephew looked after him, and these two both tell you that 
during that time, up to the time of the sale, the horse never showed a 
symptom of lameness at all. No doubt, if you believe them, it would go 
very strongly to show, that the disease could not have existed up to that 
time. If you believe that, it would tend very much to show that the 
horse was sound when sold. But then comes the question, whether you 
believe that completely or not. Somehow or other, people who deal in 
horses—and in this case the observation applies equally to plaintiff and 
defendant, because both deal in horses—but it seems that people who 
deal in horses, seem to be a little less particular what they do and what 
they say, than people who deal in other commodities. If it be true as 
