Contemporary Agricultural Law. IJST 



frost ])ite and claimed compensation under the Workmen's 

 Compensation Act, 1906. It was held, without deciding 

 whether there had been an accident within the meaning of 

 the Act, that as there was no peculiar danger from cold to 

 which the applicant was exposed beyond that to which a large 

 section of the population whose occiipation is out of doors is 

 subject the injury could not be said to arise " out of the 

 employment," and therefore he could not recover. This 

 decision has since l)een affirmed by the House of Lords (1912, 

 A.C., 35 ; 81 L.J.K.B., 45). In Amys v. Barton (28 Times 

 L.R., 29) Amys was engaged in threshing on his employer's 

 farm. While the work was in progress some of the other 

 workmen saw wasps on the drum and at the back of the 

 machine close to where Amys stood. The next day he had 

 a swollen leg and complained of pain, and some days later 

 he died from poisoning set up by a wasp sting. It was held 

 that there was no evidence that the injury to the deceased 

 arose " out of his employment," and that his widow was not 

 entitled to compensation. A statement made by Amys to the 

 doctor who attended him that he was threshing wheat 

 and must have disturbed a wasps' nest, as Avasps were about, 

 and one stung him, was held inadmissilile as evidence of 

 the cause and occasion of the accident. M'Lauchlan v. 

 Anderson (1911 S.C, 529) was a Scottish case imder the same 

 Act where a workman whose duty it was to load and accompany 

 a train of waggons drawn by a traction engine while sitting 

 on a waggon dropped his pipe. In dismounting to pick up 

 the pipe he fell and was run over by the waggon. The Court 

 held that, as he had a right in the course of his employment to 

 leave the waggon and was doing a thing which a man while so 

 employed might reasonably do, the accident arose " out of and 

 in the course of the employment," and his wife and children 

 were entitled to compensation. 



2. Stock. In Coaker v. Willcocks (1911, 2 K.B., 124 ; 80 

 L.J.K.B., 1026) the decision of the Divisional Court noted in 

 the last number of this Journal at page 129 on a question as to 

 the right of impounding sheep on Dartmoor was confirmed. 

 It was held that the defendant's obligation to fence a " new 

 take " enclosed from the moor was not an absolute obligation 

 to provide fences which would keep out any kind of shee}) 

 including those which like Scottish sheep possessed exceptional 

 powers of jumping, but was only a limited obligation to provide 

 such fences as were usual on Dartmoor to keep out the ordinary 

 sheep of the moor. The defendant had therefore rightfully 

 impounded the sheep found in his new take. 



In Titterton v. Kingsbury Collieries Lim. (9 L.G.R., 405 ; 

 104 L.T., 569) the plaintiff, a farmer, claimed damages for the 



