650 
Veterinary Jurisprudence. 
DISPUTED LIABILITY FOR LOSS OF SHEEP BY ROT. 
Somerset Assizes. Nisi Prius Court. Before Mr. Justice Grove. 
JONES V. BUTLER. 
The importance of this trial, both to agriculturists and members ot 
the veterinary profession, has led to our republishing it in extenso. 
Mr. J. F. Norris , and Mr. G. Pill-Lewis, instructed by Messrs. Crutt- 
well and Co., of Frome, for plaintiff, a farmer of Upton Scudamore ; and 
Mr. A. Collins , Q.C., with whom was Mr. Prior Goldney , instructed by 
Messrs. Keary, Stokes, and Goldney, of Chippenham, for defendant, who 
occupies Bromham House Farm. 
Mr. Norris , in stating plaintiff’s case, said that plaintiff attended Marl¬ 
borough Fair on the 24th November last, and made a deal with defendant 
ior 100 ewes at 33s. each. Defendant had at first asked 40s., but sub¬ 
sequently they agreed upon the former price, defendant warranting the 
soundness of the flock, and this fact was stated on the cheque by which 
payment was made. 
The sheep went back the same night to defendant’s farm, and on the 
following morning they were driven to Upton Scudamore, and pastured 
on down lands the same evening. On the road they were detained a 
short while until some lambs were separated from them, which had to go 
in another direction. This took place on the high road, and neither 
here nor during the whole journey had the sheep any opportunity of 
taking herbage that could have caused any mischief. The spot where 
they were pastured on plaintiff’s farm was perfectly dry and healthy, 
situate about 1000 feet above sea level, and there they remained till the 
16th or 17th of February, when lambing commenced, in charge of a 
shepherd named Carpenter. On the 14th February, one of the ewes 
had died, but plaintiff'set it down to chill, and took no notice of the cir¬ 
cumstance. On the 6th of March, however, two died, and on the 15th, 
three, and then one a day was lost on the 17th, 29th, 30th, 31st, two on 
the 2nd, April, and one on the 9th. Plaintiff was now convinced that 
something other than chill was carrying off the sheep, and on the 10th, 
of April, he wrote to Mr. Butler, informing him that about 20 out of 
the 100 ewes were dead, and he feared nearly the whole would die, and 
he asked defendant to come and see the sheep. Mr. Butler replied that 
“ he was sorry to hear of the loss Mr. Jones had had with the ewes, but 
it was such a long time since he sold them. Pie knew several cases of 
sheep bought at Marlborough Fair from other sound flocks, and all of 
them had been dead some weeks, some in the neighbourhood of Seend.” 
On the 15th April, plaintiff went to Devizes Market, and had some con- 
vervation with defendant about the sheep. At that time he had had one 
of the sheep examined by Mr. Day, veterinary surgeon of Warminster, 
who found the liver fluked. He told Mr. Butler at Devizes that he was 
willing to put the matter into the hands of two friends—one to be 
selected by each party, and he would accept their decision. Mr. Butler 
did not give an answer to that proposal at the moment, but on the 20th 
April, when at Devizes Fair, he told plaintiff that he had turned the matter 
over in his mind, and he did not see he could do anything at all, and 
