1836.J 



FARMERS' REGISTER. 



301 



Handley, M. P. for Lincolnshire; Mr. Chapman, 

 M. P. tor Westminster; Mr. Smith of Deanston, 

 and other members interested in aiiricuiture, with 

 a complete and very powerful steam plough, con- 

 structed by Mr. Heathcote, M. P. for Tiverton. 

 About sixacres of raw moss were turned up in a 

 most extraordinary style, sods eighteen inches in 

 breadth and nine inches in thickness being cut 

 from the furrow, and completely reversed in ])osi- 

 tion, the upper surface of the sod being placed ex- 

 actly where the surface had been before. The 

 possibility of jjloughing by steam has thus been 

 established, though, as the employment of the 

 steam-plough, in preference to one drawn by 

 horses, will depend on the comparative cost of the 

 two powers, and on that of the two implements 

 used, and as there are not at present any sufficient 

 data (or judging what the diffierence of the cost 

 will be, it is not possible to say how far steam is 

 likely to be applied to this department of agricul- 

 ture. The plough of Mr. Heathcote, though a 

 very powerful machine, appears to us to be much 

 too complex and costly for common agricultural 

 purposes, though we have little doubt that it might 

 be used not only with effect, but advantage, in re- 

 claiming large portions of moss land — such as the 

 bogs of Ireland. Indeed, it is the opinion of Mr. 

 Heathcote himself, that it would not at present an- 

 swer to employ it in reclaiming a smaller portion 

 of bog than 1500 or 2000 acres, though it may 

 probably be cheapened and simplified, so as to make 

 it ultimately useful on a smaller scale. 



[English Paper. 



From the Silk Culturist. 

 AGRICULTURAL, JURISPRUDENCE. 



At the late term of the Supreme Court of Er- 

 rors, in this city, a question of agricultural juris- 

 prudence was settled, which has often been the 

 occasion of much controversy, and sometimes of a 

 total interruption of that social intercourse and in- 

 terchange of kind feelings and offices, without 

 which neighborhood ceases to be a blessing, and 

 actually becomes a curse. The question arose in 

 an action of trespass for taking a portion of the 

 fruit from a pear tree. The facts in the case were 

 these. The trunk of the tree stood about four 

 feet from the divisional line between the plaintiff 

 and the defendant, and its roots and branches ex- 

 tended some distance into and over the defendant's 

 land. The defendant plucked the fruit from the 

 branches overhanging his land, to within about 

 one foot of the line, for which the action was 

 brought. 



The defendant claimed, first, that he was te- 

 nant in common with the plaintiff, in the tree, and 

 consequently had a right to take from the branches 

 on his side of the line. Second, that if he was 

 not tenant in common with the plaintiff, he was 

 owner in severalty in that part of the tree which 

 drew its nourishment from his soil, and that he 

 had a right to take the fruit from the branches that 

 overhung his land. Third, that if he was not 

 owner of that part of the tree which is sustained 

 by and overhangs his land, still he was entitled to 

 the fruit growing on such branches. Fourth, that 

 he had a legal risrht to remove the overhanging 

 branches and projecting roots, they being a nui- 

 sance which he had a right to abate. 



The court ruled the first three points against 



the defendant J and decided that the ownership of 

 the tree was in the proprietor on whose land it 

 was originally planted, and that he, of course, was 

 entitled to all the fruit, though the roots and 

 branches may have extended into and over the 

 land of' the adjoining proprietor. On the last point 

 the court decided That the projecting roots and 

 branches were a nuisance which the defendant 

 might have abated ; but had no right to appropriate 

 to his own use. 



From the New England Farmer. 

 TARRING FRUIT TREES INJURIOUS. 



I would state a fact, showing, as I suppose the 

 effect of tar upon fruit trees. My neighbor and I 

 owned two adjoining orchards : the canker worms 

 have visited them without mercy tor eight succes- 

 sive years — my neighbor tarred his trees in the 

 usual way, mine were many of them large, and 

 taking into the account the expense and trouble 

 and chance of injury from the tar itself— I suffer- 

 ed the insidious invaders to range unmolested. 

 The last season the worms were thw compared with 

 preceding years, and many trees were permitted 

 to produce as they were wont. My neighbor's 

 trees abreast of mine, of the same age and kind, 

 bore but sparingly, while mine produced in great 

 abundance — the tar must have been the cause. 

 This matter is, no doubt, well understood, but as 

 it came under my own eye, I pass it to you: it 

 may notbeusefiil to publish. 

 YourSj truly, 



JOSEPH HARRINGTON. 



From Poeppig's Travels, 

 BREEDING OF CATTLE IN CHILI. 



The breeding of cattle is, for two reasons, the 

 branch of rural economy which is preferred by the 

 Chilian to every other ; in the first place it grati- 

 fies an inclination for wild and independent life, and 

 his love of every thing that is adventurous and 

 bold, and requires violent, not uniform, exertions. 

 The best educated men of the larger towns, on an 

 occasional visit to the country, take pleasure m 

 pursuing the catde, and participating in the occu- 

 pation in which the mountain herdsman (vaquero) 

 is engaged. * * * The Chilian, especially of 

 the lower class, possesses a wild energy of char- 

 acter, which was misunderstood by the former go- 

 vernment, or at least not duly employed, and 

 which inclines him to such occupations as disqual- 

 ify him and probably will do for a long time to 

 come, for a uniform and sedentary employment. 

 A second perhaps still more important reason is, 

 that, since the expulsion of the Spaniards, and the 

 introduction of a free system of trade, the breed- 

 ing of cattle has proved more profitable than ag- 

 riculture. * * * The number of animals which 

 a single land owner possesses, would often appear 

 extravagant to a European ear. They speak with 

 great indifference of herds of 1000 or 1500, and 

 consider a man by no means rich who has three 

 times that number. The haciendas in the central 

 provinces often have from 10,000 to 15,000, and 

 many even 20,000, and the number of smaller es- 

 tates which have from 4 to 5000 is very great. 

 Since the revolution, the value of this species of 

 property has risen in an extraordinary degree ; and 



