Conteinporani Agricultural Law. 189 



it. The Court of Appeal held that there was no evidence of 

 negligence on the part of the defendant which would make 

 him liable for the injuries caused. Lord Justice Buckley 

 thought that the defendant was entitled to succeed on any one of 

 three gj'ounds: first that there was no ol^ligation at Common Law 

 on the part of a man who depastured cattle to prevent his cattle 

 getting into the highway : secondly, that there was no evidence 

 that the defendant left the gate open : thirdly, that even if there 

 was an obligation on the defendant to keep the gate shut still 

 it would remain to be proved that the animals were such as 

 were likely to do damage on the highway, and there was no 

 evidence that the cows were vicious animals. Lf)rd Justice 

 Vaughan Williams, however, did not go so far, and added that 

 he did not think it was good law that a farmer was entitled to 

 turn out untended cattle on pasture adjoining a highway with- 

 out a fence, to such a number that they were likely to obstruct 

 the highway by day or night without lieing liable to an action 

 on the part of those who, using the highway, were injured by 

 the obstruction. With these cases should be compared 

 Higgins v. Searle (7 L.G.R., 640 ; 100 L.T., 280), decided in 

 19()1' where it was held that in the absence of negligence a 

 farmer was not liable for injui'ies to a motor car caused by his 

 sow straying on the road, and it was said that an animal 

 straying on the highway was one of the ordinary risks taken 

 by persons using the highway. (See this case noted in Vol. 70 

 of this Journal at page 145.) 



3. Landlord and. Tenant. The case of Re Kedivell and 

 Flint (1911, 1 K.B., 797; 80 L.J.K.B., 707) is of great 

 importance on the question of the liability of a landlord to pay 

 compensation for market garden improvements under the 

 Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908, and the repealed Market 

 Gardeners' Compensation Act, 1895. The Act of 1895 provides 

 in section 4 that " where, under a contract of tenancy current at 

 the commencement of this Act (January 1, 1896), a holding is 

 at that date in use or cultivation as a market garden with the 

 knowledge of the landlord, and the tenant thereof has then 

 executed thereon, without having received previously to the 

 execution thereof any written notice of dissent by the land- 

 lord, any of the impi-ovements in respect of which a right of 

 compensation or removal is given to a tenant by this Act, then 

 the provisions of this Act shall apply in respect of such 

 holding, as if it had been agreed in writing after the 

 commencement of this Act that the holding should be let or 

 treated as a market garden." The Agricultural Holdings Act, 

 1908. repeats this section in Section 42, Sub-section 2, bnt 

 provides that in the case of a contract of tenancy current on 

 January 1, 1896, where such tenancy was a tenancy from year 



