662 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
alluded simply up to the time of the purchase. If the sheep were sound 
at the time of the warranty the defendant was entitled to the verdict. 
He was pledged to that, whether he knew not of their condition or 
otherwise. The warranty being admitted, the plaintitf maintained that 
it was broken, the sheep warranted sound being, at the time of sale, 
unsound. The germs of the disease which ultimately proved fatal to a 
considerable number, and lessened the value of the rest, were, it was 
alleged, existing in the animals, and consequently considerable damages 
were claimed. No doubt, the question to decide was a very difficult 
one. It was a question on which veterinary surgeons on one side and 
veterinary surgeons on the other could not agree in their views—indeed, 
he was going to say in any of their views. As to the time this disease 
could be originated in the sheep they did not agree ; as to the proba¬ 
bility of sheep contracting it on land they were driven over after the 
purchase, they did not agree ; but though doctors disagreed gentlemen 
of the jury were supposed to be able to come to a very careful and very 
accurate conclusion. Personally, he could not regret that they and not 
he had to decide it. Their twelve minds would unitedly arrive at an opinion 
which one mind would probably not. The sheep exhibited, they might 
take it, at the time of purchase, no sign of disease; had they, they 
would not have been bought. There was nothing, they may take it, in 
the nature of fraud alleged; no imputation was thrown upon the defen¬ 
dant ; it was not said he knew the sheep had the disease when he sold them. 
If the defendant was liable he was liable from a likely result that was 
dependent upon his warranty. Perhaps it would have been better had 
these gentlemen met, after the disease had developed, and agreed to 
divide the damages; they would have been then, he was inclined to 
think, much wiser men. It would have saved one of them a great deal 
of money, and possibly would not have been injurious to the man who 
succeeded in this action. Important questions devolved upon the jury 
to consider. Really and substantially they had to determine what period 
was this disease likely to remain latent in the animal before it became 
perceptible. A sheep, however thin or ill, might have flukes or not. 
It was not before the symptoms were absolutely perceptible, that with 
absolute certainty they could ascertain the fact. Veterinary surgeons 
for the plaintiff said that this disease incubated for a considerable time 
before it became developed and fatal. The veterinary surgeons for the 
defendant generally said it was not a very long time, and one of them gave 
three months as the maximum period. A peculiarity in flukes in sheep, 
as in scarlatina and other diseases, was that it varied according to circum¬ 
stances. But here, in the evidence, there was an eminent difference. 
One side would put the period of incubation at about six months; the 
other at about three months. The animals were bought on the 24th 
November, 1879, and the first sheep died on the 14th February following. 
That was somewhere about eleven weeks; that would be within the 
maximum time of the defendant’s witness. On the other hand, they all 
agreed it might be developed in a much less time—in six weeks, or even 
less; so that there was no certainty that the disease existed at the 
time of sale. It might still have been contracted after the sale. 
Mr. Collins .—It was not said the first sheep died of fluke ; a chill 
was thought to be the cause. 
Mr. Norris .—No ’post-mortem examination was made ; the witness said it 
was chill, but afterwards maintained it had symptoms of flukes. 
His Lordship, continuing, said other animals dying, an examination was 
made on the 7th of May, live and a half months after. Then, at once, was 
realised the importance of the question as to how long this disease might 
