MO RAILWAY FENCES. 



ate some yew cuttings whieli were lying in defcudant's close, and died 

 in consequence. Tliere Avas evidence to show that defendant and his 

 predecessors had repaired the fence in question for more than forty 

 years, and that for the last nineteen years the fence had been repaired 

 by defendant and his predecessors upon notice by the occupier for the 

 time being of the plaintiff's close. The County Court judge non-suited 

 the plaiutill", but the Court of Queen's Bench held that the evidence 

 showed a prescriptive obligation on the part of the defendant to main- 

 tain the fence so as to keep in the cattle in the plaintiff's close : that 

 the obligation was absolute to keep up a sufficient fence at all times, the 

 act of God or vis major only excepted, without any notice of want of 

 repair ; that the damage was not too remote, and that the defendant 

 Avas tlierofore liable for the loss of the cows, distinguishing this case 

 from Longmekl v. HolUdcuj, 20 L.J. Ex. 430 ; and Buf/cr v. Hunter, 

 ol L.J. Ex. 214. In the case of Dawson v. The MiiUaiid Railwaij Com- 

 jianij, 8 L.R. Ex. 8, the plaintiff hired of the occupier of land adjoin- 

 ing the railway, a stable : he also had permission from the occupier to 

 turn his horse into the field during the day-time to graze. Through 

 the defect of the defendant's fence, the horse got on to the railway and 

 was killed : held that the Company were liable to pay i)laintiflF the value 

 of the horse. 



In the case of Sncoslij \, Lancaslilre and Yorkshire Railway Company, 

 the plaintiff sent a drove of twenty-nine beasts by rail for Wakefield 

 market ; arriving at Wakefield on the night before, they were driven at 

 about eleven at night along an occupation road to a field where they 

 "were to remain for the night ; the road crossed some sidings of defen- 

 dants' railway on a level, and while the cattle were crossing the sidings, 

 the defendants' servants negligently, and without warning to the per- 

 sons in charge of the cattle, let some trucks run violently down an 

 incline into the sidings : this separated tlie cattle into two divisions, 

 and so frightened them tliat they escaped from the control of the drovers 

 and rushed away. The drovers succeeded in recovering most of the 

 cattle, but six or seven of them were not discovered till between three 

 and four the next morning, when they were found dead upon another 

 jjart of defendants' line. Their tracks were traced from the sidings ; 

 and it appeared that they had gone along the occupation road for about 

 a quarter of a mile, and had then got into an orchard and garden 

 belonging to the defendants, the fences of which were defective, and 

 thence on to the railway, where they were found : held that the damage 

 was not too remote, and that defendants were liable. 



In Lee v. Riley, 34 L.J. X.S. C.P. 212, the plaintiff and defendant 

 occupied adjoining farms, and an occupation road extended from a high- 



