4 io APPENDIX III 



other manner as the Court may think fit to prescribe." Under 

 this Act it is not necessary to prove an intent to defraud any 

 particular person or to enable any particular person to defraud 

 another particular person, but it is sufficient to prove that the 

 accused party did the act with an intent to defraud or to enable 

 some or any other person to defraud. In this Act the term " to 

 kill seeds " is defined as destroying the vitality or germinating 

 power of such seeds by artificial means. 



The Adulteration of Seeds Act, 1878, defines the term "to 

 dye seeds" in the Act of 1869 as meaning the application to 

 seeds of any process of colouring, dyeing or sulphur smoking. 



Some indications as to the legal aspect of the subject will be 

 gathered from the following summaries of cases quoted in 

 Dixon's Law of the Farm : 



It is a nuisance if a man allows the boughs of his trees so to 

 grow that they overhang his neighbour's land (Lonsdale (Earl) v. 

 Nelson, 2 L. J. (O. S.) K. B., 28 ; 2 B. & C., 31 1). The owner of 

 land so overhung is entitled, without notice, if he does not tres- 

 pass on his neighbour's land, to cut the branches so far as they 

 overhang, even though they have done so for more than 20 years 

 (Lemmon v. Webb, 63 L. S., ch. 570 [1895] A. C). See also, 

 with regard to poisonous trees, Wilson v. Newberry, 41 L. J., 

 Q. B., 31 ; L. R., 7 Q. B., 31. In Crowhurst v. Amersham Burial 

 Board (48 L. J., Ex., 109 \ 4 Ex. D., 5) a Burial Board was held 

 liable for the loss of a horse poisoned by eating leaves of a yew 

 tree planted in the cemetery belonging to the Board, which had 

 grown through and over their fence and projected on to the 

 meadow occupied by the plaintiff. Kelly, C.B., said : " We do not 

 think that the plaintiff was bound to examine all the boundaries 

 to see that no tree likely to be injurious to his horse was pro- 

 jecting over the field he had hired." In Ponting v. Noakes (63 

 L. J.j Q. B., 549; [1894] 2 Q. B., 281) the parties occupied 

 adjoining fields, separated by a fence and ditch belonging to 

 defendants. The ditch was on the plaintiff's side, the edge of 

 the ditch being his boundary. On the defendants' side was a 

 yew tree, the branches of which extended over the hedge and 

 partly over the ditch; but no part extended up to or over the 

 plaintiff's boundary. The defendants were under no liability to 

 fence against their neighbour's cattle. Plaintiff's horse ate of 

 the branches extending over the ditch, and died therefrom ; and 



