VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
499 
surgeons, then the plaintiff was entitled to their verdict, but if 
they were of opinion that the diseases had all arisen after that date, 
they would then give the defendant their verdict. To con¬ 
stitute unsoundness, it was not necessary that the animal should 
be unfit for work; and if there were the seeds of disease in the 
animal when it was sold, then the plaintiff was entitled to recover 
under the warranty. 
The jury retired for about twenty minutes ; and on returning 
into court gave a verdict for the defendant, evidently to the surprise 
of the learned judge. 
Mr. Bruce moved for a new trial, 
The learned Judge certainly thought the plaintiff’was entitled to it. 
Mr. Paley objected to a new trial, unless the usual ten days’ 
notice were given. 
His Honour said, after that objection, Mr. Bruce had better give 
the usual notice ten days before next court day. 
CRUELTY TO A HORSE. EXTRAORDINARY PROFESSIONAL 
PROCEEDINGS. 
[We extract the following from the Liverpool papers, and cannot 
refrain from expressing our regret that, on the simple question as 
to whether an act of cruelty had or had not been perpetrated, there 
should have been any difference of opinion between veterinary 
surgeons occupying so distinguished a position as those originally 
concerned in this case. The veterinary surgeon, before all 
others, ought to be distinguished for humanity towards the brute 
creation. Few things tend more to place him in his right position 
and to raise his calling in the estimation of the public. We hope 
never again to see those antagonistic to each other who should act 
in common to protect the lower animals from the cruelty too often 
exercised upon them by men of degraded minds. Here at least 
should be unity and concord. Although we have thus given free 
expression to our thoughts, we nevertheless are of opinion that the 
letter of the Hon. Secretary should have been penned in less 
censorious terms. A good cause is too often damaged by hasty 
expressions arising from excited feelings.] 
Charge of Cruelty to a Horse. 
Edward Connell was charged with having cruelly ill-treated a horse, 
by working it when it was in an unfit state. 
Police-officer No. 184 stated that his attention had been drawn 
to a horse and car which were being driven by the defendant. On 
examining the horse he found a sore as large as a half-crown on 
its back, and several smaller wounds on other parts of the body. 
Mr.R. Lathbury , the Honorary Secretary to the Society for the Pre¬ 
vention of Cruelty to Animals, said the horse was in a shocking state, 
there being six or seven raw wounds on different parts of the body. 
Mr. Ellis, veterinary surgeon, said he had examined the horse, 
and on the near fore leg he found an enlargement as large as the 
