CORRESPONDENCE. 
355 
upon the responsibilities of members of onr profession in their 
relation as examiners of horses for soundness, you say that 
“malice and prejudice” must be proven before liability is in¬ 
curred, and that all men familiar with veterinary jurisprudence 
hold this belief. 
Now, from my own knowledge and experience, I hold a diamet¬ 
rically opposite opinion, and I have yet to meet the member of my 
profession who is influenced by “ malice and prejudice ” in ex¬ 
amining horses for soundness, but I hold that all those familiar 
with veterinary jurisprudence are alive to the fact that they are 
legally bound to use all known means to fortify their position ; 
and that, failing to do so, they are legally liable to that extent 
to the vendor or purchaser. In support of this opinion, allow 
me to refer you to the London Veterinary Journal for June, 
1898, at page 439, where the liability of veterinary surgeons in 
their examination of horses for soundness is discussed at a 
society’s meeting, setting forth one instance where an exam¬ 
iner, pronouncing an animal sound, had to reimburse the pur¬ 
chaser $500; and another, where the surgeon, also certifying to 
soundness, had to pay the value of the animal, including rail¬ 
way transportation, and the fees of two other veterinary sur¬ 
geons, who pronounced the animal unsound; and they were 
held thus liable, not because of “ malice or prejudice ” in their 
decision, but because they omitted to use all the recognized 
means for detecting defects that did exist when they passed the 
horses as sound ; or, in other words, because their examination 
was superficial. 
These cases are just the reverse of the one under discussion, 
but the principle, or “ veterinary jurisprudence,” is identical. 
In your July issue of the Review you say that I doubtless 
have condemned many a horse upon a superficial examination. 
This I grant you ; for when the unsoundness is ocularly dem¬ 
onstrated, a minute examination is unnecessary, and one is then 
justified ; but in the case before us, the animal that was con¬ 
demned by Dr. Ackerman as being unsound “ at both ends,” 
was, the same week, submitted to the inspection of three other 
veterinary surgeons, each of whom carefully examined the ani¬ 
mal, and certified to the same being sound. 
I would suggest that this matter of veterinary jurisprudence 
is of sufficient importance to repay all members of our profes¬ 
sion for any time spent in understanding the same, and would 
not advise any reader of the Review to be carried away with 
the impression that “ malice and prejudice ” on their part must 
