Claim Against a Farrier

Cla£m A/(a£nst a Farr£er. death had occurred three or four, probably five days previously). In these cases, especially in s um me r , putrefact ive bac illi may swarm in the blood to such an ex ten t, an d those of a nthrax ha ve partia ll y or wholly disappeared, or refu se to sta in, that diag nos is is extremely diffi cult even in the hands of an expert. In th ese cases the carcase sho ul d he dealt with as if deat h were cert ain ly due to anthrax; in fac t, the Anthrax Order of 1899 provides for the imm ed ia te disposa l of s uch carcases as if cer tain Iy dead of ant hrax. There is reason to believe th at ani mals dead of anthra x are freq ue ntly sen t to lm ackeries, an d the fl esh is consigned to L ondon as "ca t's meat, " ei th er par ti a lly cooked or raw. Some m eans should be taken to prevent the possibilit y of this, as the va ns in wh ich such meat is conveyed m ay infect other goods, apart from the infective nature of the material itself. With r egard to the dis posal of carcasesI have carefully studied the method of Major Bostock, now advised by the Board of Agricul ture, and can speak of it in t er ms of unqualified approval, having no w wa tch ed the destrnction o f several carcases . o attention is required after the fire has been se t alig ht, every t hing is consumed, and there is not the slig htest possibility of any infection r em aining . It is not ex pen sive, the cos t being very littl e more than that of burial.

CLAIM AGAINST A FA RRIER . AT Clerkenwell County Court, on Thursday, October II, before his H onour, Jud ge Edge, Alfred L ines, farrier, of Art hur Mews, Caledonian R oad , I slin gton, N., sued Messrs. Francis and Son, coal me rchants, of Pit fie ld Street, Hoxton, fo r { I 3, in respec t of shoei ng work done . Mr. Barrett was counsel for pl aintiff, a nd Mr. Gutteridge for defend an t. Th e cla im was not disput ed , but defend a nt s fil ed a co untercla im for { 13 odd, as loss sustain ed through a ll eged negligence on the pa rt of plaintiff or his se rvant. Mr. Gutte l idge, in ope ning upon the co un te rclaim, sa id plaintiff h ad done s hoeing work for his cI ients for some years. A horse, taken to him for shoeing on November 20, beca me lame. It was returned to plainti ff on th e' following da» His man took off the shoe and said there was nothing wrong. The hor se was sent out to work, but as the r esult of a vete rinary s urgeon 's examination it was put on the sick li st. It was (onnd th a t a nail bad entered one o f th e hoofs and ca used it to fester. D efendants sustained the loss of serv ices of this horse for fifty- eight days, for which they claimed 7S. per day . They also claimed {6 8s. a s wages paid to a m an for attending and poulticing the horse. He mig ht mention that since the action was brought the horse had had to be kill ed. The Judge ; As a result of these alleged injuries , do you say? . Mr. Gutter idge; 0, I don't think I can say that. I ha ve made no claim in respect of its death. Jam es Franci s, a member of the de fendant firm, said they purch ased the horse in 1898 for { 42 . It was always a good working

The Veterz"nary

J ournat.

horse. \ iVitness went on to support counsel's statement as to what happened after the horse was sent to plaintiffs to be shod, and added that when the nail was drawn out he saw a discharge at the end of it, which denoted a fe ster. The horse was laid up until February 5 ; then it worked a little until March 28. It then went to stable and in April it was sent out to g rass. Subsequently, on the advice of a veterinary surgeon, it was destroyed. Mr. Barrett: Did your father tell you that Mr. Lines had pointed out to him that this horse had a weak and brittle foot ?- I don't remember him saying so. And that it was difficult to shoe ?- I kn ew it was difficult to shoe. And a lso that Mr. Lines said there was · great ri sk in shoeing it, and that Y0tl must take the risk ?-No, certainly not. Had this horse, ·in addition to a weak and brittle foot, also a ringbone ?-Not that I know. R obert L owe, th e carter who took the horse to be shod, said th a t on returning it to pl aintiff, his man put the shoe on agai n, saying he could find nothing the matter . But th e animal had a difficulty in getting home, owing to the lameness. Mr. Barrett: It was a job to shoe this horse ?-WelJ, yes. You had to go to the farri er's very often with it ?-Yes. How many times in a month ?- I have been with it three times in a month. Is it not a fact tha t it has been done in eight days ?-Yes. That is a very unusual.ihing ?-Yes. How long sho uld a horse carry its shoe in working on the London streets ?- He should carry it about three weeks or a month. You knew it was difficult to get a shoe on this horse at all ?-Yes, it was difficult. Has plaintiff's foreman told you many times that it was difficult to shoe ?-Yes. He told me it was a horse that required great ca re. You knew that this horse had a large ringbone ?-I did not notice one. Has it not frequently happen ed that on the shoe being wrenc.hed that the foot would break away ?-It would break away. Another workman, who attended the horse, said th e dischilrge was on the top as well as underneath the hoof. It was a troublesome horse to attend to. When he took up its foot it would fall over on to him. Henry Shaw, M.R.C.V.S., said that on being called in he tapped the nails of the hoof with a hammer, and on coming to the second inner nail the horse flinched. He took th e shoe off, and in drawing the nail he saw there was a fester. He cut it out, and gave orders for it to be poulticed. He saw the horse again two days later a nd again cut it out. Mr. Gutteridge: Wh-at would you attribute this to ?-To the nail. What happened to it when it recovered 2-; It was again shod. Mr. Barrett: I want you to address yourself generally to the question of shoeing. Some horses have weak and some have strong feet ?~Yes . Counsel produced two specimens of feet and handed them to Mr. Shaw for examination. In one case, the witness said, there was plenty of horny substan~ e} and the .foot was not brittle, so there Wall Id

Claim Against a Farrier. be no difficulty in shoeing the horse. The other one was a bad specimen of a broken foot , and the farrier wo uld have to take g.reat care in sRoeing it. . Mr. Ba rrett : Will yo u explain the reaso n ? Witn ess: The o uter wall has been several times broken away with constant fas tening . Each opera ti on of shoeing ten ds to split the horn. This horse of defendant's had a brittle foot ?-Yes, but I did not consider it- weak. It had fair heels. There are many cases amongst L ondon horses where the maximum of weakness has been obta ined and they ca llnot be shod at all ?-Yes. And they ha ve to be turned out to grass ?~ That is so. What did thi s horse die of ?-This foot beca me bad again . I don't suggest th at it had anyth ing' to do with the old injury. But w hat was the actua l cause of dealh ?-The pole-axe _ But why was the pole-axe necessary ? - The foot was becoming slough y. N ow, sir, was thi s foot not in such a weak a nd unhealthy condition that it could not be shod without risk before November 20 ?-l say that the nail was tb e primary ca use of the foot festering. There is a detac hment here. Mig ht not a nail penetrate into this hollow ?-It mi g ht. Is it not a fact that the dirt go t into this ?-It may have been a fresh accident. Th e Judge: W hen you gave permissi o n for it to be re-shod did YOll consider it fit t o work again ?-Yes. Mr. Barrett : W hen it was in such a weak condition the d·irt· got in and the foot got she lly ?-No, it was not. I don't lmow what caused the foot to go wron g afterwards . W ould yo u have expected thi s result if a horse had a sound foot ?I cannot tell you the cause of th e foot goin g off. Is it not a fact that the foot went· wron g because it was brittle and could not suppor t the weight of the horse ?- I cannot say. The foot of the horse was in a much mo re weak condition than thi s one (produced) ?-Speaking ge nera lly , it was brittle, but not so weak as this one. . . Do you· think a foot of this kind could be shod without ri sk ?-It wo uld require careful shoeing. But would you blame a far rier of yours if any thing happened ?0 ; I should tell him to be careful , a nd I shou ld expect him to be. The Judge: But if a horse is pricked by a na il would it not become sensiti ve and flin ch ?-Yes. In thi s case the horse was taken out and did a consid erabl e amount of work afterwards. Is it' possibl e, hav in g rega rd to th e shelly natnre of it s 'foot, that the nail worked into the quick ?- It might h ave happened throug h th e shoe being pressed upon sideways. Mr. Gutteridge : This is my case, your Hon ou r. The Jud ge: T h en where is th e negligence? Mr. Gutteridge : A lthoug h it is not possi·ble for me to show that this was the foo t of an ordin a rily h ea l ~hy horse , yet it becomes inc umbent upon the farrier who und ertakes to s hoe a horse of th is kind to use a high deg ree of care. Th e Judg e: And you mu st show th a t he did not. B ut you liave not shown it. · It is -quite p os's ible th a t he did not prick th e hor se.

The Veterinary Jour1'lal. It is quite possible that th e nail did not reach the q uick whils t the horse was b eing shod, but after working it durin g th e 'day on a foot of thi s kind it is possible that it may have forced the foot 0'0 to the nail. ML Gutteridge: ML Shaw has stated tha t in his opini on it was caused by th e pri ck of the nail. The Judge : Very likel y, but not throu g h careless shoeing. The shoeing may have been perfect so far as the m ere a ct of shoeing is concerned, but w here a horse is afterwa rd s exerc ised and a nail becomes promin ent owin g to the condition of the foot, it does not show any negligence on th e part o f the smith in shoeing it If it had happened a t th e tim e throug h the smith not ta king proper care, the horse would ha ve flin ched. The fact th a t he did not shows to my mind tha t this crumbly, shelly foot wa s really the cause of the accident, Mr, Gutteridge: I m ust show there was careless work on th e part of the workman , The Judge : But your own witness, ML Shaw, says it does not show careless work. ML Gutt eridge : But tha t is no t fa ta l to me . Th e Judge : I a lmost think it is fa tal to yo ur case, but I hope it is not fatal to you. ML Gutt eridge: There is the carman wh o says th at when he took the horse out immedia tely afterwards it fell lame. It bad been shod dozen s and dozens of tim es before, but had not fall en lam e imm ediately after shoein g. Th e Jud ge: It would get worse after each shoeing, As I said just now, if this nail had pressed into its foot a t th e time it would have flinch ed, Mr. Gutteridge: Th e inference to be dra wnThe Judge : I will not draw infere nces, You h ave no ca e w hateveL Judgment for plaintiff on th e cla im and coun tercla im. ML Barrett: I have three veterinary experts in co urt whom I was going to call, I ask tha t their qualifyin g fe es might be a llowed ? The Judge: Who are th ey ? Me Ba rre tt: They are ML Willia m Hunting, Mr·, H obday, and ML Spooner. The Ju dge: Very well, I allow th eir fees ,

1Re"iews. G EN ERA L S URGERY . By Dr, E ugen Frbhner, Professor at the Royal Veterinary College in Berlin , Au th orised translati on from the Th ird Revised Edition . By D . Hamm ond Udall , B.S .A" D ,V ,M, Associate Professor of Surgery ancl Obste trics, Ohio State University, Columbus , Published by M essrs, Taylor and Car penter, Ithaca, New York, Price 3 dais. net, 347 pa ges, no illustrations, As the name of this work indicates, it is a gene-rnt surgery, and not in any wayan operative surgery, the latter branch being reserved for