VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
651 
upon that plaintiff replied, “ Then we must have a fair fight for it.” 
Plaintiff subsequently instructed Messrs. Cruttwell and Co., Frome, who, 
writing to defendant, informed him that a sheep had been ‘‘opened and 
examined by two well-known veterinary surgeons, who find it to be a 
most fearful case of flukes in the liver, and pronounce that the disease 
must have existed long before the date of the sale by you to our client.” 
Messrs. Cruttwell reminded him that he had warranted the sheep sound, 
which he no doubt believed to be the fact at the time, but “about the 
beginning of last month (February), the best of the sheep began to die 
off suddenly, and the probability was that their client would lose every¬ 
one of them.” They asked him to go and see the sheep, and he did so, 
accompanied by Mr. Beaslev, veterinary surgeon. One of the sheep was 
opened in the presence of Mr. Beasley and Mr. James of Frome, and he 
(the learned counsel) understood that some flukes were found in it one 
and a half inches long. No satisfactory arrangement, however, was come 
to between the parties, and plaintiff had been compelled to bring the 
present action. At the time it was entered 62 out of the 100 ewes had 
died, besides 70 of their lambs, and the remainder (38) were in a hope¬ 
lessly diseased condition, and were subsequently sold in Frome Market 
with seventeen lambs for £38, less £1 expenses. Plaintiff had also in¬ 
curred expenses in the shape of milk, extra food, and labour, amounting 
to £50,—two milch cows having had to be obtained purposely to provide 
extra nourishment. The full amount sued for was £177. His learned 
friend no doubt would contend that the sheep were sound at the time 
they were sold, and when the warranty was given, and that they had 
contracted the disease either upon plaintiff’s farm or upon the way there. 
It seemed that after they were bought they were taken back to defendant’s 
farm at Bromkam the same night, by defendant’s own man, along with 
thirty lambs, and that on the following day the remainder of the journey 
was completed, the flock having been detained for about half an hour in 
Bratton drove, while the lambs were picked out to go in another direction 
to Mr. Francis’s, who had bought them. It probably would be contended 
that the disease was contracted by the sheep picking the herbage in the 
lane. But it was a hard stone road, and there was no place where the sheep 
could feed. The plaintiff’s farm was a perfectly healthy one, and it was 
impossible that the sheep could have been baned after they arrived there. 
The veterinary surgeon would tell them that sheep were not known to 
become fluked after the month of October, and they would remember 
that the ewes were not bought till November the 24th. It seemed that 
when once the germs had been taken into the animal, though they could 
not be exterminated, their development might be retarded by careful 
treatment, and might not show itself for a long time. In the first stages 
of the disease the animals fattened very rapidly, and if they were wanted 
for the market, and were put into a wet meadow where they might pick 
up the germs, they soon considerably improved. Mr. Norris then called 
a large°amount of evidence bearing on the purchase and subsequent 
movements of the sheep, and also as to the character or the fluke 
disease 
The plaintiff, Ishmael Jones, examined by Mr. Pitt-Lewis, said that 
on the 24th November, 1879, he attended Marlborough^ Market and 
made a deal with defendant for 100 ewes at 83s. a head. Defendant 
warranted them sound and he paid him by cheque. It was airanged 
that Edward Snelgrove should drive them back to Mr. Butler’s, 
which was about fourteen miles from Marlborough, for the night, and 
that they should go the remaining twelve miles to Upton Scudamore on 
the following morning. His farm included one field ot 308 acres right 
