- Email: [email protected]
Jurisprudence
266
The Veterinary fournal.
As we go to press we learn with much pain of the sad death of Mr. T . H. Merrick, F.R.C.V.S., Northamp ton, who succumbed on March 19th to an overdose of chloral, taken by himself to induce s leep. Many members of the profession will share with us in the feeling of regret we experience at the loss of such a genial and enthusiastic colleague. Mr. Merrick graduated in 1874, and spent some time subsequently in South Africa, serving, if we are not mistaken, in a local cavalry corps there during one of the campaigns so frequ ent of recent years in that country. Returning to England he resumed practice with his fa ther in Northampton, and in 1891 beca me a Fellow. Last year he was elected Preside nt of the Midland Counti es Veterinary Medical Association . Om deep sympathy is tendered ·to his father, Mr. T. J. Merrick, in the heavy bereavement he has sustained. ..
runrtsprUllence+ HIGH CO URT OF J USTICE, LONDON. Mardi I ,til. (Before Mr. J USTICE HAWKI NS an d a Special Jury.) SMITH v . REYNOLDS. This was an action to recover £200 damages for the loss of a mare, w hich, it was alleged by the plaintiff, was killed at the defend ant's forge, owing to th e negligence of the d efendant's servants. The defendant pleaded that th e loss of the mare was ca used by her own vice. Mr. M'Call, Q.c., and Mr. Upj olm appea red for the plaintiff; Mr. Kemp, Q.c., and Mr. Gregson Ellis lor the defe ndan t. The plaintiff is a horse dealer carrying on business in Little Cadogan-place, Chelsea, an d th e del endant is a veteri nary surgeon and farrier in Clargesstreet, Pi ccadilly. The mare in question was a chestnut, bred in Norfolk, and purchased by the plaintiff for £150. She had been regularly exercised and showed no sign of vice, and had been in the plaintiff's possession about three mo nths on the 3rd of June, 1892. On that day she was sent down to the defendant's forge to be shod about 6.30 a.m. About 9 word was brought up to the plaintiff that an accident had ha ppened to the mare, and his foreman, on going down to the forge, found her lying on her off side. There was great sweating. The mare died the same morning. The p ost-mortem examination showed that the neck was dislocated and th e atlas bone fractured, a nd there was extravasation of blood upon the brain. This, it was contended on behalf of the plaintiff, showed that the injury had been inflicted before death, and it was suggested that the mare had been vi olently struck on the head by one of the farriers with his hammer, which had fracture d the wing of the atlas, and that upon being struck she had thrown up her head, and so dislocated th e neck. For the defendant it was suggested that the mare was " green," and on being fastened up by a halter to be shod had" hung b ack," and then, feeling herself checked by the halter, had jumped fo rward, s triking her head against the wall, stunning herself, an d fall ing with a jerk up on th e halter, and so causing the dislocation of the neck. Another suggestion to account for the latter symptom was that it had been caused after death by the chain put round the mare's neck to drag her body into the horse slaugh terer's ca rt. Th:s was the secon d trial of the action, the j ury having been un able to agree on the former occasion. For the plaintiff a large number of witnesses, including several eminent veterinary surgeons, were called, who deposed th at th e injuries sustained must have been caused before death, and th at the suggestions put forw ard by the defence were impossible. F or t he defend ant the three men engaged in the forge were called, who swore p ositively th at th e mare never was struck with a hammer on the head at all, but that she caused
The Central Veterinary Medical Society.
267
th e i nj uri e sby " han ging back ,. and th en striking her head against the wall S eve ral veterinary surgeons were also called, who spoke to similar accidents having occurred in their experie nce. The case began on March 8th, occupied th e whole of that and the following day, and was only concluded on the I !th. Thr learned Judge, in summing up the case to the jury, said tha t the questi on for them, as defined by th e particulars, was, "Was the man who was engaged in shoeing the mare guilty of cruel brutality by striking her on the heac] with a hammer? " It was for the plaintiff to prove this to the satisfaction of the jury, and mere suggestions would not be sufficient. His Lordship commented severely on the fact that. although this piece of brutality was alleged to have bee n perpetrated in June, th e defendant never had any notice of what was suggested against him until th e following J anu ary. It wa s a circumstance which the jury were very well 'entitled to take into th ei r consideration, although it did not of course destroy the cause of action if it existed. It was agreed by both sides that th e brea king of the atlas bone was not the cause of dea th . but the plaintiff's veterinary surgeon suggested that, being struck with the hammer, she had tossed up her head, and in doing so had dislocated her neck. His own experience of horses was very small, but, slight as it was, the suggestion surprised him. His Lordship then wer,t very carefully through the evidence, pointi ng out th at, unl ess th e defend ant's men had co mmitted deliberate and wilful perjury as to wh at too k place, the death of the mare was accounted for in a way which ab solved the d efenda nt from all blame. The real question was, "Did the mare mee t her death by a cruel act of viol ence?" The jury returned a verdict for the defendant.
~mce£hings
of
~d£rimtr)J ~£biC(l1
Socidies, eft.
CENTRAL VETERINARY MEDICAL SOCIETY. (Continued from jJage 208 .) Discltssion Oft Firing. Mr. H . EDGAR said if he were in order-having spohn on the previous occasio n- th er e were just a few rem arks he should like to make in regard to the theory of firing. He d en ie d that fi -ing was to any great extent of use in \'eterinary surgery as a counter-irritant, if th ... term " coun ter-irritant " was employed in the ordinary sense of th e term. He considered that the illust rations adduced by Professors Macqueen and Penberthy about the kidney and pleuritic adhesions supplying a counter-irritant did not apply to fi rin g, because t hey fired directly on the part affected, and they did not fire one point to derive some b ~ nefit at another and a dis tan t point. His idea of th e firing th eory was th at by it they brought about an irritation which ir.duced a certain amount of blood to th e part; that there was first a contracti on and th e n a dilatation of the vessels. and this brought more blood to th e part. Thlls he believed they assisted nature in her work of r estoration very ma terially- th ey considerably hastened the process of restoration. Where th C'y derived b enefi t in cases of bony deposit ,,\-as where by point firing into th e bone th ey got an irritation set up directly; and he thoubht it acted unq uestion ably as a b andage of a temporary, if not of a permanent character. Ca ses of thorough-pin, he thought, strongly proved this, and when th ey remembe red th e elastic power an d condition of the skin and whe n they fired and proci ~ced those lines or marks on the skin, th ey ,,~ere b ound to destroy thnt e lasti City. H e qu estioned very much whether th e origina l amou nt of elasti City was ever restored to the skin. If not it seemed to him that a tempor ary if no t a perman ent bandage was thu s induced. His theory
The Veterinary fournal.
As we go to press we learn with much pain of the sad death of Mr. T . H. Merrick, F.R.C.V.S., Northamp ton, who succumbed on March 19th to an overdose of chloral, taken by himself to induce s leep. Many members of the profession will share with us in the feeling of regret we experience at the loss of such a genial and enthusiastic colleague. Mr. Merrick graduated in 1874, and spent some time subsequently in South Africa, serving, if we are not mistaken, in a local cavalry corps there during one of the campaigns so frequ ent of recent years in that country. Returning to England he resumed practice with his fa ther in Northampton, and in 1891 beca me a Fellow. Last year he was elected Preside nt of the Midland Counti es Veterinary Medical Association . Om deep sympathy is tendered ·to his father, Mr. T. J. Merrick, in the heavy bereavement he has sustained. ..
runrtsprUllence+ HIGH CO URT OF J USTICE, LONDON. Mardi I ,til. (Before Mr. J USTICE HAWKI NS an d a Special Jury.) SMITH v . REYNOLDS. This was an action to recover £200 damages for the loss of a mare, w hich, it was alleged by the plaintiff, was killed at the defend ant's forge, owing to th e negligence of the d efendant's servants. The defendant pleaded that th e loss of the mare was ca used by her own vice. Mr. M'Call, Q.c., and Mr. Upj olm appea red for the plaintiff; Mr. Kemp, Q.c., and Mr. Gregson Ellis lor the defe ndan t. The plaintiff is a horse dealer carrying on business in Little Cadogan-place, Chelsea, an d th e del endant is a veteri nary surgeon and farrier in Clargesstreet, Pi ccadilly. The mare in question was a chestnut, bred in Norfolk, and purchased by the plaintiff for £150. She had been regularly exercised and showed no sign of vice, and had been in the plaintiff's possession about three mo nths on the 3rd of June, 1892. On that day she was sent down to the defendant's forge to be shod about 6.30 a.m. About 9 word was brought up to the plaintiff that an accident had ha ppened to the mare, and his foreman, on going down to the forge, found her lying on her off side. There was great sweating. The mare died the same morning. The p ost-mortem examination showed that the neck was dislocated and th e atlas bone fractured, a nd there was extravasation of blood upon the brain. This, it was contended on behalf of the plaintiff, showed that the injury had been inflicted before death, and it was suggested that the mare had been vi olently struck on the head by one of the farriers with his hammer, which had fracture d the wing of the atlas, and that upon being struck she had thrown up her head, and so dislocated th e neck. For the defendant it was suggested that the mare was " green," and on being fastened up by a halter to be shod had" hung b ack," and then, feeling herself checked by the halter, had jumped fo rward, s triking her head against the wall, stunning herself, an d fall ing with a jerk up on th e halter, and so causing the dislocation of the neck. Another suggestion to account for the latter symptom was that it had been caused after death by the chain put round the mare's neck to drag her body into the horse slaugh terer's ca rt. Th:s was the secon d trial of the action, the j ury having been un able to agree on the former occasion. For the plaintiff a large number of witnesses, including several eminent veterinary surgeons, were called, who deposed th at th e injuries sustained must have been caused before death, and th at the suggestions put forw ard by the defence were impossible. F or t he defend ant the three men engaged in the forge were called, who swore p ositively th at th e mare never was struck with a hammer on the head at all, but that she caused
The Central Veterinary Medical Society.
267
th e i nj uri e sby " han ging back ,. and th en striking her head against the wall S eve ral veterinary surgeons were also called, who spoke to similar accidents having occurred in their experie nce. The case began on March 8th, occupied th e whole of that and the following day, and was only concluded on the I !th. Thr learned Judge, in summing up the case to the jury, said tha t the questi on for them, as defined by th e particulars, was, "Was the man who was engaged in shoeing the mare guilty of cruel brutality by striking her on the heac] with a hammer? " It was for the plaintiff to prove this to the satisfaction of the jury, and mere suggestions would not be sufficient. His Lordship commented severely on the fact that. although this piece of brutality was alleged to have bee n perpetrated in June, th e defendant never had any notice of what was suggested against him until th e following J anu ary. It wa s a circumstance which the jury were very well 'entitled to take into th ei r consideration, although it did not of course destroy the cause of action if it existed. It was agreed by both sides that th e brea king of the atlas bone was not the cause of dea th . but the plaintiff's veterinary surgeon suggested that, being struck with the hammer, she had tossed up her head, and in doing so had dislocated her neck. His own experience of horses was very small, but, slight as it was, the suggestion surprised him. His Lordship then wer,t very carefully through the evidence, pointi ng out th at, unl ess th e defend ant's men had co mmitted deliberate and wilful perjury as to wh at too k place, the death of the mare was accounted for in a way which ab solved the d efenda nt from all blame. The real question was, "Did the mare mee t her death by a cruel act of viol ence?" The jury returned a verdict for the defendant.
~mce£hings
of
~d£rimtr)J ~£biC(l1
Socidies, eft.
CENTRAL VETERINARY MEDICAL SOCIETY. (Continued from jJage 208 .) Discltssion Oft Firing. Mr. H . EDGAR said if he were in order-having spohn on the previous occasio n- th er e were just a few rem arks he should like to make in regard to the theory of firing. He d en ie d that fi -ing was to any great extent of use in \'eterinary surgery as a counter-irritant, if th ... term " coun ter-irritant " was employed in the ordinary sense of th e term. He considered that the illust rations adduced by Professors Macqueen and Penberthy about the kidney and pleuritic adhesions supplying a counter-irritant did not apply to fi rin g, because t hey fired directly on the part affected, and they did not fire one point to derive some b ~ nefit at another and a dis tan t point. His idea of th e firing th eory was th at by it they brought about an irritation which ir.duced a certain amount of blood to th e part; that there was first a contracti on and th e n a dilatation of the vessels. and this brought more blood to th e part. Thlls he believed they assisted nature in her work of r estoration very ma terially- th ey considerably hastened the process of restoration. Where th C'y derived b enefi t in cases of bony deposit ,,\-as where by point firing into th e bone th ey got an irritation set up directly; and he thoubht it acted unq uestion ably as a b andage of a temporary, if not of a permanent character. Ca ses of thorough-pin, he thought, strongly proved this, and when th ey remembe red th e elastic power an d condition of the skin and whe n they fired and proci ~ced those lines or marks on the skin, th ey ,,~ere b ound to destroy thnt e lasti City. H e qu estioned very much whether th e origina l amou nt of elasti City was ever restored to the skin. If not it seemed to him that a tempor ary if no t a perman ent bandage was thu s induced. His theory