Contemporary Agricvltitral Law. 99 



locomotive the property of one or more owners or occupiers 

 of agricultural land employed solely for the purposes of their 

 farms, and not let out on hire." Caleb Lee had no licence for 

 his traction engine, and an information was preferred against 

 him under Section 9. It was held that the conveying of farm 

 produce to market was an employment for the purposes of his 

 farm, and his engine was therefore an "agricultural locomotive," 

 and exempted from the necessity of a licence. 



Williams v. Wood (12 L.G.R., 646) is another case arising 

 under the same Act. Section 6, Sub-section 1 of the Act 

 enables bye-laws to be made to regulate the use of locomotives 

 and "waggons" drawn by them on any highway, and a bye- 

 law had been made by the Herefordshire County Council that 

 a locomotive drawing two or more loaded or unloaded waggons 

 should not travel on any highway without a communication 

 cord from the rearmost waggon to such locomotive, and a 

 person to travel in the rear of such waggons to signal to the 

 driver to stop. It was held that the bye- laws were applicable 

 to a locomotive plough engine drawing a set of scuffles which 

 travelled on two wheels and a set of harrows which travelled 

 on four wheels, but that in the case of two such locomotives 

 with their gear closely following one another on a highway 

 the Act allows the employment of five men only altogether, 

 two in driving each engine and one to accompany them and 

 give assistance. In the opinion of the Court the set of scuffles 

 travelling on the road on three wheels and the set of harrows 

 travelling on four wheels were vehicles, and fell within the 

 definition of " waggons " in the Act. 



Smith & Sons v. Pickering (31 Times L.R., 55) also turned 

 on the meaning of the word "waggon" in the Locomotives 

 Act, 1898, which by Section 2 requires the weight unloaded to 

 be legibly affixed on waggons drawn by a locomotive. The 

 vehicles in question, which were drawn by a locomotive, 

 were a threshing machine and a straw-pressing machine. 

 The Court held that each of the machines considered as a 

 whole was a waggon, and must comply with the provisions 

 of the Act. 



Ledhu7'y Rural Council v. Somerset (30 Times L.R., 534) 

 was a case of " extraordinary traffic," and it was there held that 

 traffic conveyed along a road adapted to it, and such as is to 

 be expected in the ordinary course, is not " extraordinary 

 traffic " within Section 23 of the Highways and Locomotives 

 (Amendment) Act, 1878 (41 and 42 Vict., c. 77), so as to entitle 

 the road authority to recover the expenses incurred in repair- 

 ing the road in consequence of such traffic. The traffic in the 

 case in (question was heavy traction engine traffic conveying 

 stone from a stone quarry adjoining the main road, and it was 



E 2 



