PLANTING TUBES ADJACENT TO HIGHWAY. LiL 



way through defendant's form, of whicli it formed part, into the plaintiff's 

 farm, where it formed part of plaintiflf's farm. There was a gate across 

 the occupation road at the point where the farms adjoined, and it was 

 the duty of defendant to keep this gate in repair. Tliis, however, the 

 defendant had neglected to do, and in consequence of this neglect, a 

 grey mare of his strayed through the gateway into a field of the plain- 

 tift^'s, and inflicted such injuries upon plaintiff's horse that the latter 

 had to be killed. Held that the defendant was liable for the trespass 

 by his horse, and that it was not necessary for the maintenance of the 

 action that the defendant's horse was vicious and that defendant was 

 aware of the fiict. See also Ellis v. The Loflus Iron Com})any, 10 L.E. 

 C.P. 10, where the above case is cited. 



By section 64 of the Highway Act, 5 & G Will IV. c. 50, no tree, 

 bush, or shrub sMll he planted in any carriage-icaij or cart-icai/, or 

 within 15 feet from the centre thereof, under a penalty of 10s. if it be 

 not cut down by the owner or occupier of the land within 21 days after 

 receiving notice from the surveyor. Sections 65 and QQ direct the 

 cutting, pruning, and plashing of hedges, and the pruning and lopping 

 of trees. By the latter section, hedges need only be pruned between the 

 last day of September and the last day of March, and oak trees in hedges 

 are only obliged to be felled (except when the highway requires widen- 

 ing) in April, May, or June ; and ash, elm, and other timber trees, in 

 December, January, Februarj^, or March. 



By 3 Geo. IV. c. 126, s. 113, it is enacted " That ditches, &c., of a suffi- 

 cient depth shall be made, &c., and sufficient trucks, tunnels, &c., shall 

 be made where carriage-ways or footways lead out of the said turnpike 

 roads into the lands or grounds adjoining thereto by the occupiers of 

 such lands or grounds : " held that the words, " occupiers of the lands 

 adjoining " apply only to the latter part of the section. Merivale v. 

 Exeter Road Trustees, 3 L.E. Q.B. 149. 



Section 72 of 5 & G T17//. IV. c. 50, imposes a penalty upon any one 

 " Who shall wilfully ride upon any footpath or causeway by the side of 

 any road, &c. :" in the case of Rer/. v. Pratt, 3 L.R. Q.B. G4, it was held 

 that this Act was intended to apply only to footpaths or carriage-ways 

 by the side of the road, and not to footpaths generally. 



The case of Jenneij and Runnacles v. Brooh turned on the construc- 

 tion of sec. 65. An order luas there served on an oivner to cut a hedge, 

 and he did cut some part ; but the surveyor thought the order not 

 properly complied with, summoned him before two justices, and had 

 him fined, and after ten days cut the hedge himself. The Court of 

 Queen's Bench held the order to be bad, for not specifying more par- 

 ticularly in what manner and to what extent the hedge was to be cut. 



