262 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
he saw the horse, and that he was lame of the near foot. He had been 
present at the sale, and he says he advised the plaintiff to write on that day. 
Then on the 19th he saw him again, and examined him, and found him 
still lame of the same foot. Then he proceeds to say, that when he was 
at the sale on the 7th April, the defendant offered £20 to make peace. I 
think that offer amounted to this—the defendant says, “ I don’t admit 
that the horse was lame or unsound when I sold him, but I will offer you 
£20 to have done with the matter.” I do not think you should bestow 
too much attention upon that, because a man may very fairly say, “ I will 
give you £20 to purchase peace” without admitting himself to have been 
in the wrong, and that seems to have been in effect what the defendant 
did in this case. He seems, in terms, to have said, “ I will give you £20 
or £30 to have done with it,” and the plaintiff says, “Iwill not take 
that,” and he now claims a higher sum; and if you find your verdict in 
his favour I must say a word as to how the measure of damages must be 
arrived at. 
Then Lawson is called, and he says, on the 19th December, at the 
request of the plaintiff, he examined the horse, and found that he was 
lame in the fore foot. He believed that it was navicular disease. In 
his certificate on that day he only expresses that the horse was lame, but 
he does not say it was navicular disease, or chronic disease, nor does he 
give any account of it. Now the inference one would draw from the 
terms of the certificate is, that he was not quite certain that it was navi¬ 
cular disease, but he says he believed it to be. Then on the 2nd March 
he says he saw the horse again. He was with him for bronchitis from the 
21st January to the 25th February. He had been there twice, once 
with sore throat, and again with what is called pneumonia, or bronchitis. 
Of both these attacks he was cured. They have nothing to do with the 
case. Then he says, “ He quite recovered from bronchitis ;”—he thinks 
he had seen him for a cold before: that is doubtless the cold in question. 
Then he says, “ on the 2nd March I examined the foot, and he was still 
lame of the same foot. My impression was, that it was navicular dis¬ 
ease.” Then he explains that. You heard all that was said, and I do 
not think I could assist you, or do you any good, by reading all that over 
again. If either of the counsel want it read over again, I will do it 
readily; or if you wish it, I will read it over; but I think your 
general recollection of the evidence will be enough. Then, he says, on 
both these occasions there was no heat, and that he would certainly say 
that the cause of lameness must have been there for more than a month 
or six weeks. He says there was no heat, or acute symptoms ; but he 
cannot possibly say what was the length of time. He says there was no 
acute disease on the 19th December. If he is right in that, I think that 
shows at least that the disease must have been of six weeks’ standing, 
and it must show that it was there before the sale. But, of course, 
though Mr. Lawson is a man of skill, he is, like everybody else, liable to 
error, and you must judge whether that is correct or not. 
Then he goes on to say that, on the 2nd March, he was sure that 
there was chronic disease in the foot; and though Mr. Greaves, veteri¬ 
nary surgeon, did not see him so soon, on the 7th March he and the 
other veterinary surgeons saw him, and all agree that there was chronic 
lameness. But then there was time enough between the month of No¬ 
vember and the 7th March for the disease to have been produced, and 
the acute symptoms to have disappeared. But, at all events, on the 
7th March they all agree that the horse had the navicular disease. 
Then the horse is sold on the 6th April, and here there comes in a 
matter which you will have to consider a little, and that is this, when the 
