100 Contemporary Agricultural Law. 



found that the road had been used for such trat3ic for many 

 years, although tlie output from the quarry had greatly increased 

 recently. 



In Mint}/ V. Glew (]2 L.G.R., 121; 110 L.T., 340) the 

 respondent was proceeded against for keeping a carriage with- 

 out a licence under the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1888 

 (51 and 52 Vict., c. 8), Section -4. The carriage in question 

 was an old four-wheeied waggonette built to contain six 

 persons and drawn by one horse, which had been altered by 

 the respondent for use on his farm. He had removed the 

 interior upholstery, strengthened and widened the wheels, 

 and supplied stronger springs. His name was painted on the 

 side in white letters. He hu.d used it for general work of his 

 farm, i.e. to take workpeople to and from work, potatoes to the 

 railway station, bran to the farm, corn to the horses in winter, 

 &c., and he had never used it as a private carriage or to carry 

 passengers other than his workpeople. It was held that it was 

 exempted from duty as being a vehicle '* constructed or adapted 

 for use and used solely for the conveyance of any goods or 

 burden in the course of trade or husbandry," notwithstanding 

 the possibility that it might be capable of being used for other 

 purposes. 



Two cases of nuisance deserve notice. In Bland v. Yates 

 (58 Sol. J., 612) the occupiers of a dwelling house adjoining a 

 market garden where intensive culture was practised suffered 

 physical inconvenience from the smell and from the flies bred 

 in a large heap of manure accumulated by the defendant for 

 use on his market garden. The locality, Shepperton-on- 

 Thames, was one where market gardening was carried on, liut 

 the collection of manure was in excess of what might be 

 expected even in that locality. Mr. Justice Warrington held 

 that the manure heap was a serious inconvenience and inter- 

 ference with the comfort of the occupiers of the dwelling 

 house according to notions prevalent among reasonable English 

 men and women, and that it amounted to a nuisance at law 

 which should be restrained by injunction. 



Wood V. Gomvay Corpuration (8:5 L.J., Ch., 498; 1914, 

 2 Ch., 47) was a case of nuisance from fumes and smoke from 

 the Corporation's gasworks, which had injuriously affected a 

 plantation of trees adjoining the gasworks to such an extent 

 that the tops were dying, while in some cases the trees were 

 dead. There was no house on the part of the plaintiff's pro- 

 perty affected. It was held by Mr. Justice Joyce and the 

 <;^ourt of Appeal that although there was no house affected, 

 the plaintiff was entitled to an injunction to stop the nuisance, 

 which caused a serious growing and permanent injury to his 

 property. 



