VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
659 
knowledge that slieep have been baned there, I don’t even know that a 
great many have died there. I have heard it, however. I gathered 
yesterday, too, that sheep had been baned on Mr. Butler’s brother’s 
farm. The sheep I examined at Mr. Jones’s farm presented every 
appearance of being baned, but, of course, I can’t say that they would 
have died up to this time. They might live a month or two or longer 
from hence. 
His Lordship .—But the animal might recover?—Witness—Certainly, 
your lordship j it does not of necessity die. 
Re-examined .—I have seen Mr. Jones’ sheep, and they are in a very 
low condition. With regard to the period of the existence of fluke it is 
very difficult to speak. 
John Rose , butcher, of Devizes, gave evidence as to killing the ewe in 
Mr. Beasley’s presence. The teg he considered perfectly sound ; and 
the liver of the ewe looked perfectly healthy. 
Mr. C. LI. Parry, Chilvester Hill, Caine, said he was an auctioneer 
and valuer, and had been in business about twenty years He had 
had considerable experience in the farms of Wiltshire and the neighbour¬ 
ing counties. He knew Mr. Butler’s farm, and had valued the stock on 
it twice within the last four or five years. The farm itself he had known 
the last twenty-five years; and he should say it was one of the soundest 
farms in England. It was of a light, sandy soil, of high level, but 
running across a valley. In his judgment, as an experienced man, it 
was certainly not a likely farm to “ rot ” sheep. 
Mr. Norris .—No part of it?—No. 
Mr. Norris .—You say it is within six miles of Chippenham ?—Yes. 
Mr. Coleman , veterinary surgeon, of Salisbury, a member of the Royal 
College of Veterinary Surgeons, and who had been in practice for 
upwards of thirty years, said he had had considerable experience in sheep, 
and more especially as he was a farmer as well as a veterinary surgeon. 
The fluke disease in the last year or two had been extremely prevalent. 
On the 23rd of June he went to Mr. Jones’s farm, accompanied by Mr. 
Beasley. He saw the flock of ewes there and a number of lambs, and, of 
course, the animals, or those remaining, in question. He saw no dis¬ 
tinction as regards condition or disease between those formerly 
belonging to Mr. Butler and the remainder of the flock. All were in a 
low condition—very low indeed. He should say, as to the ewes, that 
they had been badly kept, and the majority of them suffered more or 
less from the fluke disease. Witness went over the road leading from 
the plaintiff’s to the defendant’s farm, and he should consider it most 
decidedly an unhealthy lane to drive sheep—it was absolutely dangerous 
for sheep to pass along that road when the fluke was prevalent. It 
would be very dangerous for sheep to stay there any time. The 
character of the land on either side would tend to produce the disease. 
He saw Mr. Butler’s sheep, both the ewes and the tegs. The tegs were 
in a very good condition; and as to the ewes which remained from the 
flock that Mr. Butler had sold, he had one of them killed, and on 
examination he found it perfectly sound and free from disease. Witness 
went over some portions of Mr. Butler’s farm, and found it perfectly 
healthy, dry land. The land that he saw was certainly not likely to 
rot sheep. He was in Court on the previous day, and with regard to 
the opinion then expressed that sheep did not take flukes in October, 
he was able to contradict it, and give a case in illustration. He sold 
thirty-four lambs at Yarnborough Castle Fair on the 4th of October. 
Six or seven weeks after, these animals commenced dying ; and he was 
certain they never contained the germs of the disease previously. The 
