18y Contemporary Agricultural Law. 



loss of a heifer and a pedigree bull by sewage poisoning owing 

 to the pollution of a stream called Thistlebrook by sewage 

 matter. The defendants were colliery proprietors who had 

 leased certain land belonging to them to Messrs. Moore, who 

 erected on it a number of cottages for the acconunodation of 

 the defendants' miners. These cottages drained into sewage 

 disposal Avorks also erected by Messrs. Moore, and some of the 

 sewage escaped into the Thistlebrook and caused the pollution 

 in question. It was argued that the sewers had become vested 

 in the local authority under Section 13 of the Public Health 

 Act, 1875, and that they and not the defendants were liable for 

 the damage caused to the plaintiff. The Court, however, held 

 that as the defendants, the landowners, were exercising control 

 over and managing the sewage works they Avere liable notwith- 

 standing that the sewers had vested in the local authority. The 

 damages were assessed at 50i, 



There have been two interesting cases on the question of 

 liability from accident caused by animals straying on the 

 highway. In Jones v. Lee (28 Times L.R., 92) a young horse 

 placed by the defendant in a field escaped on to the highway 

 owing to a defective hedge. The plaintiffs were riding a 

 tandem l)icycle on the road and slowed down on seeing the 

 horse. The horse turned round suddenly, ran across to the 

 other side of the road and came into contact with the bicycle. 

 Its fore legs were caught in the front wheel and it fell down. 

 It then jumped up and lashed out injuring one of the plaintiffs 

 and the bicycle. The plaintiff sued for the injuries thus 

 caused by the horse. There Avas no evidence that the horse Avas 

 A'icious or in the habit of trespassing or attacking bicycles or 

 persons on the highroad. It Avas held that the plaintiffs could 

 not recover damages as it did not appear that the injury to the 

 plaintiffs Avas the actual consequence of the defendant's negli- 

 gence, the act not being one which it is in the ordinary 

 nature of a horse to commit. Mr. Justice Bankes in the course 

 of his judgment stated that at Common Law there is no duty 

 imposed on an owner or occupier of land to keep his animals 

 off the highAvay, Ellis v. Banyard i2'6 Times L.R., 122) was a 

 case Avhere a cyclist was injured hy cattle on the higliAvay and 

 sued for damages. The plaintiff, about 10.30 p.m. on an 

 August night, was bicycling along a road adjoining a field 

 l)elonging to the defendant Avhere some hundred cows Avere kept. 

 She passed the gate and saAV some of the coavs coming out, and 

 a little further on she saw some cows crossing the road. She 

 sloAved down to jump off, and according to her evidence was 

 knocked down by the coavs, one of Avhich it was said stood 

 upon her and broke her leg. It Avas proved that the gate Avas 

 out of repair but no evidence was given as to Avho had opened 



