Boundary Fences, 
437 
B. Barley. 
The experiments on the growth of barley have been carried on 
in the Hoosfield since 1852, so that the crop of 1889 was the thirty- 
seventh in succession. Some modifications of the manures were 
made in the earlier years of the experiments, but since 1868 the 
manures recorded in the tables have been annually applied. 
The average market price of home-grown barley on October 25 
(the day on which the adjudication of the samples by the valuer 
took place) was 30s. 11c/. per quarter. 
From Table V., page 436, it appears that the most valuable crop 
was produced by the use of nitrate of soda with superphosphate of 
and the highest average was obtained from the plots to which the 
lime, silicate as well as the nitrate of soda was applied. 
BOUNDARY FENCES. 
A note upon a case decided in the County Court of Derbyshire held at 
Bakewell by His Ho?iour Judge Barber, Q. C. 1 
So much misapprehension exists on the subject of the obligation to 
repair boundary fences, and on the question, which often arises in con- 
sequence, whether the owner of cattle which stray into a neighbour's 
premises is or is not liable for the damage thereby occasioned, that 
a note of the following case can hardly fail to be useful. It may be 
premised that J udge Barber, who decided the case, practised while 
at the Bar on the Chancery side, and he had for many years a 
great reputation as a conveyancer and real property lawyer. 
The plaintiff was at the date of the action, and had been for some 
seven or eight years previously, the tenant or occupier of a field of 
grazing land known as Fisher's Piece. On the north side of that 
field was a stone wall, which separated it from the adjoining field, 
also used for grazing purposes, and known as Poor's Piece, in the 
parish of Castleton. The wall was in fact the boundary at this 
point between the parish of Castleton and part of the township of 
Bradwell, which is part of the parish of Peak Forest. The wall 
was of the dry masonry so well known in the district, and was of a 
height varying from about four to five feet. 
The plaintiff claimed that his landlord was the owner of the wall, 
and that it was included in his tenancy ; and this was conceded by 
the defendant. It was proved at the trial that in places the wall 
1 Fletcher v. Howe. Reported in the Laiv Journal for January 25, 1890, 
p. 64. 
