7S^ The Jottnial of Forestry. 



centre in aequoia. These scales subsequently become woody. HiB 

 male catkins of the cypress, juniper, and thuja resemble those of 

 the yew, whilst the female cones, or rjalhuli, only differ from those of 

 jnnus in having few scales, which do not overlap and become rather 

 fleshy than woody. 



Allusion may be made hereafter to the importance of the deciduous 

 floral organs as manure; but the only justification that can be given 

 fbr the present array of structural details, is their necessity to an under- 

 standing of the life history of our forest trees, and the necessity that 

 soulid practice should be based on such an understanding of sound 

 theory. 



THE IJTGHT OF "PANNAGE." 



In the case of Chilton v. Mayor of London, which was tried before the 

 Master of the Rolls on Feb. 8, the plaintiff, a commoner of the manor of 

 Loughton,partof Epping Forest,sought to restrainthe defendants, the Mayor 

 and Corporation of the City of London, the lords of the manor, from {iNlcr 

 a/la) lopping oaks and pollards so as to interfere with the plaintiff's right 

 of "pannage." The right claimed by the plaintiff is for his pigs to eat 

 the acorns and beech mast falling from the trees of the woods on the 

 manor. It was contended that the defendants had no right either 

 to cut down the oak trees or to lop the pollards so as to diminish the quan- 

 tity of acorns otherwise falling to the ground. The defendants, on the 

 other hand, contended that the plaintiff was only entitled as a subsidiary 

 right to such acorns as happened to be on the ground, and that they could 

 lop or cut down their oak trees in a usual course of husbandry. 



Mr. Davey, Q.C., and Mr. Elton appeared for the plaintiflF; Sir J. 

 Stephen, Q.C., Mr. Chitty, Q.C., and Mr. W. R. Fishor for the defendants. 



The Master of the Rolls knew of very little authority on the point, and 

 the industry of counsel had not been able to furnish him with any decided 

 case, and, in fact, there seemed to have been a singular absence of litigation 

 as to this right of " pannage." All the dictionaries were agreed that it was 

 simply a right to go into another man's wood, and allow pigs to eat the 

 acorns or beech mast which fell on the ground. The drovers of the pigs 

 had no right to take the acorns off the trees or even to shake them. How 

 did this right affect the grantors of the " pannage " ? From the time of 

 Richard I. to the present day he had never heard of any interference with 

 their right to cut the trees when ripe for so doing, or to lop the pollards 

 in the ordinary couri-se of husbandry. He came to the conclusion, there- 

 fore, that the plaintiff had not the right claimed, and it was not necessary to 

 consider whether he had suffered any injury. His lordship then proceeded 

 to consider some other grounds for the injunction asked for, which are not 

 necessary to mention, and, eventually, refused to grant the same, and dis- 

 missed the motion, with costs. 



