Star.
London, England, 1828-08-23 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

GLOUCESTER, Amon. 21.
Chit. Sus.—Before Mr. Justice Gm:mac and a Spedallury.

DAVIS W. CAPPAR.

Our readers will remember, that in this case, which
was reported is the STAR of yesterday, it was stated
that the Jury retired at a quarter past eleven in the
• forenoon, to consult on the verdict they would return,
and remained shut up till nine dclock'at night, without
any prospect of agreeing, when they, were released iM
the night, by consent of the Counsel for the plaint iff and
defendant, on condition that . they would return into
• Court this morning and endeavour to agree to a verdict.
• At 20 minutes before ten o'clock this morring, the
• Jury appeared in. Court, and through their Chairman,
• the Hon. Middleton Noel', stated that there was not the
slightest chance r.f their agreeing to a verdict.
Mr. Justice Gases**—l am sorry for it, Geode-
men ; and, ss my own opinion was all along in favour
of the dtfendant, on the law of the case, L will now
nonunt the plaintiff. •
Mr. CORWOOD--My Lord, on the part of the plain-
tiff, I will not submit to be nonsuited. I consider that
my client is entitled to recover, and I 'will abide by the
verdict of the Jury, whatever it may be.
Mr. Justice GastLee—That is exceedingly bard upon
die Jury, and if I reserve the whole of the case for the
opinion of the Court of King's Bench, I think that will
power every purpose.
• Mr. CURWOOD—if your Lordship reserves the whole
eases! will submit to benonsuited.
The plaintiff was then nonsuited, subject to the *pis
• *ion Of the COW of Kings Bencb ou the points **served,

and the Gentlemen of the Special Jury were immediately
discharged from further attendance.
BRISTOL, Ammar tl.
Before Mr. Justice Palm, and a Special jiffy.

NESBITT V. KENT.

The defendant in this case is a veterinary surgeon re-
siding in this city, and the action was brought to reco-
ver 601. the alleged value of a- horse which was the
property of the plaintiff, and which had died, as was
said, in consequence of the negligent and unskilful man-
ner in which it had been bled by the defendant.

Mr. FOLLETT having opened the pleading.,
Mr. C. F. WILLIAMS stated the plaintiff's case. The
Learned Gentleman observed, that it had been for a
long time the established custom amongst farriers and
veterinary surgeons, in bleeding horses, to use an instru-
ment well known and callel a Ream. The defendant
had, however, on the occasion which had given rise to
the present inquiry, had recourse to a lancet, and the
consequence of this innovation in practice was, as he
(Mr. Williams) would show to the Jury, that the horse,
immediately after the bleeding, exhihited symptoms of
inflammation and extreme debility, and had, whilst pro-
ceeding from the -defendant to the plaintiff's hou•e,
dropped down dead. The complaint against the de-
fendant was, that, deviating from the ancient and safe
method of bleeding, he had recourse to a new one,
which had caused such an effusion of blood as led to
the death of the animal. When the horse was dead, the
plaintiff sent to the defendant, to request that he would
come and ex 'mine him, with a view to ascertain the
cause of the emit. This the defendant refused to do,
upon which another veterinary surgeon was called in,
who ascertained, on examining the horse, that the vein
had been cut through, and the artery punctured. This
was the circumstance which had, by causing an extreme
effusion of "food, produced the death of the horse. These
facts, Mr. Williams said, he should establish by evi:
deuce, after which he should expect with confidence the
verdict of the Jury in favour of his client.
Robert Nesbitt deposed, that he took the horse to the
defendant's on the 20th of June. The horse was bled
by the defendant with a lancet, in the right side of the
neck ; and about a gallon of blood taken away. After
the bleeding, Mr. Kent remarked that there was a large
swelling at the place which had been opened with the
lancet. The swelling also extended up both sides of
the neck. The defendant ordered his man to chafe it
with cold water, which was done for fifteen minutes.
The defendant then desired witness to take home the
horse gently, and chafe the neck with cold salt and
water. He said witness might ride the horse if he pleased.
Witness having led the horse a short way, rode it for
halt a mile, after which he dismounted, as the animal
was very weak and bled at both nostrils. Witness went
a short way for a farrier, leaving the horse with a man.
Witness soon after returned, and before he got up to
the horse the animal fell down, and died in two minutes
after.

Cross-examined—Witness took the horse home tl:e
nearest way. The animal was well-bred, and had a
•ery fine skin.

Mr. Davis, who had been in the habit of attending
upon horses for 20 years, deposed that he examined the
horse in question atter death. He found that a great
quantity of blood had escaped from the orifice, which
he believed to be the cause of the horse's death. The
vein was punctured through, and he thought the artery
had been divided ; there was a quantity of arterial blood
in the throat ; in the juigment of the witness a lancet
was not a proper instrument to bleed a horse with ; it
ought to be done with a Ream.
Cross-examined—Witness took from six to seven pints
of blood out of the horse's neck ; witness attributes the
death of the horse to the great loss of blood, and to no
other cause; witness did not examine the artery; the
immediate cause of the death of the horse was suffoca-
tion, in consequence of the blood which had escaped
alter the neck had been tied up.
Mr. N. P. Lee, a veterinary surgeon, said that a Ream
was safer to bleed with than a lancet, as the former had
a guard. The witness was of opinion that the death
had been occasioned by cutting through the vein and
puncturing the artery.
Cross-ezamined—Witness was educated at the
terinary College in London, under Mr. Sewell. That
Gentleman usually bled horses with a lancet.

Another veterinary surgeon gave similar evidence.
Mr. Sergeant WILDE., for the defence, said that he
Should prove that the death of the horse had been occa-
sioned by the plaintiff's not complying with the defen-
dant's directions, and that the defendant had not been
guilty of any negligence whatever in the manner in
which he had treated the animal. The Learned Ser-
geant then called
Thomas Higgins, who deposed—l am the defen-
dant's apprentice; I recollect the defendant bleeding
the plaintiff's horse. The animal was bled and bound
up in the usual way. I have always seen the defendant
bleed horses with a lancet. The defendant told the
young man who had brought the horse to be bled, that
in going home he must lead the animal quietly, and not
tide it. A considerable time after he had taken the
horse away, I met him in the street. He told me the
horse was very ill; and on coming up to the place, I
found it was dead ; the young man had a whip in his
hand and spurs on.
Mr. Williams, a veterinary surgeon at Bath, deposed
that he had always bled horses with a lancet; he never
saw Mr. Sewell u•e any other instrument; a swelling in
the neck after bleeding was no proof of want of skill in
the operator.
A person who said that he had bled some thousands
of horses deposed that the use of the lancet fur that
purpose was quite common.
A horse dealer said, that the animal before the bleed-
ing was not worth 201.
Mr. Justice PARK said that there was not the slightest
ground for imputing negligence or want of skill to Mr.
Kent, and the Jury found a verdict for the defendant.