JURISPRUDENCE. 
401 
Q. Did you notice anything about the horse at that time ? A. I 
looked at him ; he was a strong, well-boned animal; he was offered very 
cheap. I wanted a horse ; I looked at him ; but I was not satisfied that 
he was all right. I did not know very well what was the matter, and I 
inquired of a friend of mine. 
Q, State what you saw? A. 1 supposed he was not right. 
Q. What was there about him ? A. He was snotty. 
Q. You have had horses in use a number of years in your busi¬ 
ness ? A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Have you seen glandered horses before? A. I don’t know as 
I have ; I cannot say ; it is pretty hard for me to say. 
Mr. Herring here put in evidence Section 121 of the Sanitary Code, 
duly certified, and the prosecution rested. 
Mr. Price moved that the Court direct the jury to acquit the pri¬ 
soner on the ground there was no proof that he was the owner of the 
horse in question, or that he offered it for sale, or had it in any public 
place. 
Mr. Herring:—We are not called upon to prove that he was the 
owner of the horse ; it i-s enough to show that he had the horse in his 
custody. The facts point to the theory of a negotiation going on. 
The Court:—It is a question for the jury to pass upon, as to 
whether this horse was in charge of the prisoner. I, therefore, deny the 
# • 
motion. 
(Exception.) 
Mr. Price :—I ask your Honor to charge the jury that before they 
can convict the prisoner they must be satisfied he knew the horse had 
glanders. 
The Court :—I refuse that proposition. 1 say to you, gentlemen, 
that if you believe this man had eyes, senses, and knowledge, it is pre¬ 
sumed he should know what the condition of this horse was. 
(Exception.) 
Mr. Price :—I ask your Honor to charge the jury that before they 
arrive at their verdict they must take into consideration the fact that it 
took the surgeon fifteen minutes before he came to a conclusion in re¬ 
gard to the condition of the horse. 
The Court : I decline to charge that. 
(Exception.) 
Mr. Gerry cited, upon the question of intent, People v. Tinsaale (10 
Abb. Pr. P., N. S., 374), and Queen v. Hicklin (3 Eng. Law R. [Q. P.] 
375.) 
