196 Contemjiorary Agriculttiral Law. 



the land which is subject to the liability and the owner and 

 occupier from the liability. In CarshaUon Urban Council v. 

 Burrage (1911 2 Ch., 183 ; 80 L.J. Ch., 500) there Avas an old 

 chalk pit of considerable depth near a public road but with a 

 narrow strip not exceeding in the narrowest places 14 ft. 

 intervening between it and the highway. It was entirely 

 unfenced and dangerous to those using the road. It was held 

 that notwithstanding the intervening strip of land the chalk 

 pit was "adjoining or abutting" on the public highway within 

 the meaning of Section 30 of the Public Health Acts Amend- 

 ment Act, 1907, and the owner was therefore compellable to 

 erect at his own expense a fence to prevent any danger to 

 persons using the highway. 



The right of an owner or occupier of land to do acts necessary 

 to protect his land from injury has been dealt with in two cases. 

 In Cope V. Sharps (1911 2 K.B., 837 : 80 L.J.K.B., 1008) the 

 tenant of sporting rights was held entitled to adopt such 

 measures, on the land on which his rights extended, for 

 extinguishing a fire with Avhich it was threatened as might 

 in the circumstances be necessary for the preservation of his 

 sporting rights, the means adopted in the case being the setting 

 on fire of patches of heather to the leeward of the fire so that 

 when it spread to those patches it should be checked for want 

 of fuel. Much the same principle was applied in Grei/vensteyn 

 V. Eattingh (1911 A.C., 355 : 80 L.J.P.C, 158) Avhere a farmer 

 in the Cape of Good Hope whose land was threatened with 

 locusts trespassed on his neighbour's land and drove the locusts 

 back on to the cultivated portions thereof with the object of 

 protecting his own land. It was held that he was entitled to 

 repel the danger threatening his property even though the 

 result might be to transfer the danger and consequent mischief 

 from his own to his neighbour's property. Happily locusts are 

 not a danger in this country, l)ut the principle would apply to 

 other forms of danger such as an extraordinary flood which is 

 seen to be coming and against which an owner or occupier 

 might seek to protect himself at the expense of his neighbour's 

 property. 



The question of the compensation to be awarded to a 

 landowner from whom land is compulsorily purchased by a 

 county council for the purpose of providing small holdings 

 under the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908, was con- 

 sidered in Re Carlisle's (Earl) and Northumherland County 

 CounciVs Arbitration (10 L.G.R., 50). The land had valuable 

 minerals underneath it which were not acquii-ed by the County 

 Council, and the question was whether the compensation to the 

 landlord ought to be assessed on the footing that there was a risk 

 of subsidence when the minerals came to be worked. It was 



I 



