Contemporary Agricultural Law. 93 



employer till March 14, and then feeling inconvenience in his 

 left side, and some pain, he consulted a doctor, under whose 

 advice he went to a hospital. No notice of the accident was 

 given to the employer until June 23. It was held that in the 

 absence of evidence that the employer was not prejudiced by 

 want of notice, the workman's claim was barred by his failure 

 to give notice before June 23. 



'Godmmi v. Grofton (12 L.G.R., 330 ; 110 L.T., 387) was a 

 case under the National Insurance Act, 1911, which deserves 

 notice, and shows the necessity for an employer satisfying 

 himself that his labourers' cards are duly stamped, and the 

 danger of delegating the duty to a foreman or bailiff. A 

 gardener's labourer was employed by the respondent, Jane 

 Grofton, at weekly wages. He handed his insui'ance card to 

 the head gardener and had no direct dealings at all with his 

 employer, the respondent. No stamps were affixed to the card 

 in respect of three consecutive weeks. It was held that the 

 employer had committed an offence and was liable to be fined 

 under Section 69 of the National Insurance Act, 1911, although 

 it might have been the head gardener's fault that the stamps 

 were not affixed. The Court said that an employer might quite 

 well employ someone else to affix stamps to a workman's card, 

 but if he so delegated his duty, it was at the employer's risk, 

 and if not performed he was responsible. 



2. Stock. There have been no decisions of any importance 

 relating to farm stock. The case of North v. Wood (83 L.J.K.B., 

 587 ; 1914, 1 K.B., *i29), however, deserves a passing notice, as 

 it deals with the question of responsibility for the acts of a 

 savage dog. The defendant's daughter, aged seventeen, was the 

 owner of a dog for which she took out a licence in her own 

 name, and paid for its food out of her own earnings, the 

 defendant assenting to the dog living in his house. The dog, 

 which had previously attacked other dogs to the knowledge of 

 the defendant and his daughter, killed a valuable dog belonging- 

 to the plaintiff. The scienter as to the dangerous disposition of 

 the dog was therefore established. The County Court Judge, 

 before whom the action first came, found as a fact that the 

 daughter had control of the dog, and therefore held the 

 defendant not liable. The Divisional Court, on an appeal, 

 confirmed this decision on the ground that as the daughter was 

 of a sufficient age to exercise control over the dog, and did in 

 tact exercise such control, the defendant was not liable for the 

 loss of the plaintiff''s dog. 



3. Landlord and Tenant. Williams v. Wallis and Cox 

 (83 L.J.K.B., 1296 ; 1914, 2 K.B., 478) is an important case 

 relating to an arbitration on a question arising between landlord 

 and tenant undei- Section 13, Sub-section 1, of the Agricultural 



