VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
663 
remain dormant in the animal before it reached such a pitch as to cause 
death. To an ordinary observer, whether the disease was caught on the 
defendant’s or plaintiff’s land, or on land intervening, it would be 
thought probable the effect of the disease would be experienced at one 
time But the reason why it was not was that it was not infectious. It 
might be contracted at different times. But if the disease was con- 
traded anterior to the 24th of November, there was, indeed, a difference 
of from eleven weeks from the death of the first to five and a half months 
to the death of the last animal. But all this, of course, was not conclu¬ 
sive. If the disease had its origin in the animals before the sale, the 
plaintiff was certainly entitled to the verdict. It was stated by one 
counsel and admitted by the other that the plaintiff had to make out 
his case. Still, he had not to prove it by mathematical demonstration ; 
but the jury ought to act upon the case if a reasonable character of 
evidence satisfied their minds that the plaintiff’s suggestion was accurate. 
But was this so? Plaintiff maintained he had no sheep upon his farm 
similarly affected, that his land was calculated not to engender the 
disease, and that whilst these animals were dying from the disease his 
now still remained free. That, no doubt, looked strong for the plaintiff. 
But then came almost similar evidence for the defendant. Those 
hundred, he said, were taken out of a flock of 266 sheep ; the remaining 
166 he kept for a considerable time on his farm ; and ultimately he sold 
them to a Mr. Rawlins. Then there were two observations which 
affected the case somewhat materially. As to the thirty sheep that were 
diseased, they were driven over the road, but they did not infect the 
others, as the disease was not contagious. But defendant maintained all 
his sheep afterwards were, with one exception, perfectly free. Three 
were examined: two were found perfectly sound, but in the third there 
were four small flukes discovered. This, too, the defendant added, was 
only an incipent form of the disease, and could not have been contracted 
earlier than the 24th of November. If Mr. Rawlins found the animals 
all sound, or indeed any unsound, it was important that he should have 
been present. Then all the veterinary surgeons agreed that this disease 
was fostered if not induced by low, marshy ground. Plaintiff said his 
was high, sandy land, where it could not exist. Defendant said the 
same. Still he had two fields, where, however, he did not keep the 
sheep, which were, as he said, “ a little worse than the others.” But 
even these fields, he said, were not bad. And he further gave strong 
and cogent evidence on the character of the farm, which was 
strengthened by the evidence of the old shepherd. Here, then, were 
almost parallel cases. There was only a third possibility. Defendant 
suggested that the sheep might have contracted the disease in the course 
of & being driven to plaintiff’s farm. The animals went through some 
narrow °roads, and, it was suggested that in grazing—and he supposed 
sheep would graze when being driven—contracted the disease. The 
defendant maintained that this was the more likely, because there were 
two farms in which the disease had more or less prevailed. However 
important this question, come the argument—that though it might be 
possible a few sheep might have contracted the disease in this manner, it 
was not so with a large body. Another question the veterinary 
surgeons for the plaintiff urgently pressed that the disease could not be 
contracted after October. Of course, rare instances, there would be ; 
but they substantially maintained the germ of this disease existing low 
down in the grass, consequently the animals must bite close to the 
ground to contract it. From June to October w r as a propitious season 
for the contraction of the disease ; afterwards it was of rare occurrence, 
