664 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
the frost and cold killing the germs. On the other hand, again, defen¬ 
dant’s witness said it might exist later, and then one gave what he called 
an illustration of the fact, in which he supposed it must have been con¬ 
tracted after October, because certain sheep exhibited it after that 
month and others did not, Then that same witness said as with 
the whole animal and vegetable life so with the disease, the repro¬ 
ductive system went on and was developed at certain seasons of 
the year. Animals — or many classes—were not artificially treated, 
as were human beings. There generally were seasons at which — 
in both animals and vegetables—they vegetated and germinated. There 
was, however, practically speaking, a limited time, as the witness 
had stated. These were, practically, the whole points in this case. He 
was sorry he could give them but little assistance. This was pre¬ 
eminently a case on which much could be said on either side. Many 
points had been enunciated, but they could not escape from the one 
fact underlying the whole case, and which they had been unable defi¬ 
nitely to obtain. That was the period of incubation of this disease, and 
when the full development of the fluke was arrived at. If the plaintiff 
was entitled to a verdict they would consider damages. Sixty-two died, 
and the others were sold for £37, which brought the amount lost, in the 
first place, to £127. Then the plaintiff said, the amount of milk required 
by the lambs, and which was lost, necessitating the procuring of two 
cows for the purpose, with the attendance of two men, entitled him to 
£50 as expenses. Probably they would not be inclined to give this 
amount. The cows were still useful and valuable, and they might 
consider that claim as requiring reduction. However, that was 
secondary to the absolute verdict. Before they found for the plaintiff, 
the jury must be fairly satisfied the sheep were diseased before the 24th 
of November, and then they would consider the question of damages. 
After a deliberation of about a quarter of an hour, the jury found for 
the defendant, and on Mr. Goldney applying for costs they were granted. 
—Devizes and Wiltshire Gazette. 
GROSS CRUELTY TO A COLT. 
A correspondent sends the following paragraph, cut from the 
Birmingham Daily Post of Thursday, August 19th. It is scarcely to be 
believed that in these days any man could have been found so ignorant 
as to have recourse to such a cruel proceeding as therein recorded. We 
had hoped that the time had passed when such men could find support 
from agriculturists or owners of animals. They evidently want educating 
as much as the illiterate “ Farrier and Cowleech.” 
At the Old Hall Police Court, James Colley, farrier. Great 
Bridge, was charged with cruelly ill-treating and torturing a colt, the 
property of William Cox, farmer, Tividale. 
On the 24th July defendant performed an operation (castration) on 
the colt, and the animal’s intestines protruded ; and being unable to 
replace them, he cut away two yards from the intestines. The animal 
died shortly afterwards. The defence was that the cruelty was not in¬ 
tentional, and that the operation was performed in ignorance of the 
consequences. 
Mr. Bassano (chairman of the magistrates) said the Bench were-quite 
satisfied that the offence was proved. The defendant appeared to be 
brutally ignorant, and being so committed a brutal act on the animal. 
