26 JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY. 



are entitled to cut off the overhanging branches, and it has been held that 

 one may cut a Virginian creeper which overreaches in the same way. If 

 you cannot do this without going on to your neighbour's land for the 

 purpose you must be careful to notify your neighbour beforehand of your 

 intention to go on his land with this special object. I must warn you, 

 however, that if you cut off any more than what actually overhangs you 

 may incur heavy penalties. There is another reported case where a grower 

 allowed thistles to multiply on his property to such an extent as to blow 

 on to his neighbour's land and damage his crops. In this case the grower 

 was restrained by the Court from permitting the nuisance to continue. 



In exercising one's rights to cut the overhanging branches of a 

 neighbour's trees it is necessary to bear in mind that the boughs when 

 cut off still belong to the owner of the tree, and it would therefore be 

 wiser to ascertain whether he wishes them to be returned to him. On 

 the same principle it has been held that if trees growing in a hedge 

 overhang another man's land, and the fruit of them falls on the other's 

 land, the owner of the fruit may go in and retake it if he makes no longer 

 stay than is convenient and does not break the hedge. The owner of the 

 trees has the same right if they are blown down by the wind or fall over 

 by any other inevitable accident. Before going on to one's neighbour's 

 land, however, in order to take back fruit or branches which have fallen 

 in this way it is necessary first to ask for permission to enter on the 

 adjoining land, but if the request be refused then the owner of the fruit 

 may enter and take his fruit without permission. Of course it often 

 happens that it would be very unwise to exercise one's strict rights in this 

 respect, because if friction were to arise the owner of the adjoining land 

 might have the trees cut back by way of reprisal, and one therefore comes 

 back to the point that the wise man is he who acts reasonably towards 

 his neighbour without casting round to see what may be his strict rights 

 or how far the law may permit him to cause annoyance. 



With regard to trees overhanging highways, it has been said that if 

 the occupier of land suffers his trees so to protrude over the highway as to 

 inconvenience passers-by, it is a public or common nuisance, and the trees 

 may be lopped sufficiently to avoid the evil by any of the public passing 

 that way, for anyone may justify the removal of a public or common 

 nuisance which is so remediable ; it has indeed been stated that by the 

 old law nobody was bound to cut his trees that overhung the road, and 

 therefore anyone might do it. 



It is, however, extremely doubtful whether this can now be taken to 

 be an accurate statement of the law, and I should advise you to be very 

 cautious about accepting it. But even if it be correct, any person who pro- 

 poses to act as a public benefactor in this matter would do well to bear in 

 mind that the person who abates a public nuisance in this way must show r 

 special damage arising from the nuisance, and can only interfere with the 

 nuisance so far as is necessary to the exercise of his own right of passing 

 along the highway, and he must not do any unnecessary damage. 

 Probably the safest plan, therefore, is to invoke the aid of the highway 

 surveyor, who in a proper case can obtain a justice's order under the 

 Highway Acts directing the owner of the offending trees to lop the over- 

 bttDging branches. If this notice is neglected for ten days the owner is 



