810 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
2nd of February last, and kept her among his other cattle until the 24th 
of August. She used to cough and blow a bit. His cattle had been 
examined by Mr. Hedley, veterinary surgeon, on 12th of October, and 
they had been found to be in good health. 
John Ambrose Bamlett> a farmer in an extensive way at Darlington, 
knew the cow. She was in a field adjoining one in which some of his 
cattle were. He saw she was an ailing cow, and he examined her to see 
if she was suffering from any contagious disease, with a view of making 
a complaint to the inspector, so that he might have the cow removed 
from close proximity to his own cattle. After making the examination 
he was convinced she was not suffering from any contagious disease but 
from consumption. 
Mr. Matthew Hedley , veterinary surgeon, and inspector for the Borough 
of Darlington, Darlington Ward,Durham, and Gilling Division, Yorkshire, 
spoke to having examined Mr. Snowden’s cattle, and finding them all 
in good health. It was the opinion of the veterinary profession in this 
country that pleuro-pneumonia did not rise spontaneously. He had 
generally found that an animal lived about four or five weeks after it 
had become infected with the disease. From the evidence he had heard 
to-day, he was quite satisfied the animal could not be suffering from 
pleuro-pneumonia, but tuberculosis. 
Mr. Clement Stephenson , Fellow of the Royal College of Veterinary Sur¬ 
geons, and practising at Newcastle-on-Tyne, said from the history he 
had heard of the animal, and from the evidence of the post mortem , he 
was of opinion that the cow was suffering from tuberculosis , and not 
from pleuro-pneumonia. In forming that judgment he had been chiefly 
influenced by the witness who made th z postmortem. That witness said 
both lungs were much consolidated, and three fourths of each affected. 
He (Mr. Stephenson) had made hundreds of post mortems, and had never 
known a single case of an animal suffering from pleuro-pneumonia 
when both lungs had been affected. The rule was, in pleuro-pneumonia 
cases, to find one lung, or a small portion of one lung, affected, and the 
remainder perfectly healthy. It was his experience that a great many 
cases of tuberculosis —and many other diseases, such as heart disease and 
ordinary colds—had been mistaken for pleuro-pneumonia. The sym¬ 
ptoms of pleuro-pneumonia and tuberculosis were very analogous. But 
it was very difficult to tell sometimes which disease it was, and this 
rendered a post-mortem examination necessary. 
The Chairman. —Can you speak with positive certainty as to a disease 
of this sort without a post-mortem examination? 
Mr. Stephenson. —Yes, you can occasionally ; sometimes it is quite 
plain, while at other times it is most difficult to distinguish tuberculosis 
from pleuro-pneumonia in the diagnosis of the living animal. 
The Chairman. —But would not a veterinary surgeon, who had made a 
post-mortem examination of an animal, be more likely to judge of the 
true condition than a veterinary surgeon who had only seen it alive ? 
Mr. Stephenson. —Certainly, it is the last test you can put to doubtful 
or suspicious cases, particularly in lung diseases. 
Examination continued by Mr. Luck. —Witness said pleuro-pneumonia 
was purely a contagious disease, and never arose spontaneously in 
England. Last year as chief inspector for Northumberland, he ex¬ 
amined forty-eight cases of alleged pleuro-pneumonia and only three 
wt re found to be pleuro-pneumonia. This statement was sent in his 
rtport last year to the Privy Council. It was the case generally 
throughout England. 
In cross-examination , witness said he would rather draw his conclu- 
