196 
EXAMINATION OF HORSES FOR SOUNDNESS. 
this Opening, downwards in the urethra and came out at the 
cicatrized opening. This was allowed to remain at first, and 
after a few days only introduced morning and evening ; little 
by little the perineal opening closed, the whole treatment ex¬ 
tending over two months. 
Injury to the Tongue [By M. R. C, Twing ].—The 
interest of this case brings out two important points, the ten¬ 
dency to rapid recovery of lacerations of the tongue and the 
great advantage of the use of the tongne-suspensory. A mare 
had received an injury to the tongue : the tip of the organ was 
protruding, the frsennm torn ; a transverse wound, an inch deep, 
penetrated the muscular part ; this wound was about opposite 
the second molar and severed quite one-third of the muscles. 
It was necessary to cast and chloroform the animal to attempt 
the stitching of the wound ; and this was so far back that to 
reach it and bring the tongue out it was necessary to pass a 
skewer transversely through the organ above the wound and 
over this a tape. Continuous suture of carbolized string was 
applied and the tongue placed in a suspensory to keep it back 
in the mouth. On the second day the animal was permitted to 
eat a few oats. A small piece of the tongue (the tip) sloughed 
off on the fifth day, and, as the author said, this might have 
been avoided if he had applied the suspensory at the first visit 
he made ; this was late in the evening and the animal was so 
restless and irritable that only an attempt at treatment had 
been carried out and it was only the next day that proper inter¬ 
ference could be applied with the animal cast and chloroformed. 
— [Vet. Record^ 
EXAMINATION OF HORSES FOR SOUNDNESS. 
HAS THE SELLER REDRESS AGAINST A VETERINARY SURGEON 
WHO CONDEMNS HIS ANIMAL?—CONTRARY CERTIFICATES 
DO NOT PROVE AN INTENTION TO DO INJUSTICE, WHICH 
MUST BE THE BASIS FOR LEGAL ACTION. 
The following correspondence was received too late for in¬ 
sertion in the May Review, but we present it in the present 
issue because the matter has achieved considerable notoriety in 
the metropolitan district, and also in deference to the wishes of 
our correspondents. The question raised by Mr. Robbins is one 
of great importance to veterinarians, and upon which there can¬ 
not be two constructions. We are decidedly of the opinion that 
upon the evidence submitted below he has no cause for action 
