Thistle Seeds. 
(articular case before them, but generally. .Said Lord Eshcr : " Lord 
Justice Lopes has drawn up a definition of the term with which I 
mtirely agree. It is this : 1 Good tenantable repair is such repair 
is, having regard to the age, character, and locality of the house, 
would make it reasonably lit for the occupation of a reasonably- 
minded tenant of the class who would be likely to take it.' The 
age of the house must be taken into account, because nobody could 
reasonably expect that a house 200 years old should be in the same 
condition of repair as a house lately built ; flue character of the 
house must be taken into account, because the same class of repairs 
as would be necessary to a palace would be wholly unnecessary to a 
cottage ; and the locality of the house must be taken into account, 
because the state of repair necessary for a house in Grosvenor 
Square would be wholly different from the state of repair necessary 
for a house in Spitalfields. The house need not be put into the 
same condition as when the tenant took it ; it need not be put into 
perfect repair ; it need only be put into such a state of repair as 
renders it reasonably fit for the occupation of a reasonably-minded 
tenant of the class who would be likely to take it." 
S. B. L. Druce. 
THISTLE SEEDS. 
When we see a field full of thistles seeding, and the seeds blown by 
the wind over the neighbouring fields, we are apt to say, " What 
a nuisance to the neighbourhood these thistles are ; the man who 
lets them grow to such an extent ought to be made answerable 
to his neighbours for the loss he causes them through his neglect." 
But the law unfortunately gives the man's neighbours no such 
remedy, as has very recently been decided in the case of Giles v. 
Walker.* The plaintiff and the defendant occupied adjoining 
fields. The defendant's field had formerly been forest land, but for 
some years prior to 1883, when the defendant's occupation of it 
commenced, it had been brought into cultivation by its then owner. 
It was stated that the forest land prior to cultivation did not 
bear thistles ; but that when it was cultivated they sprang up all 
over it. The defendant neglected to mow the thistles, or in any 
other way prevent them from seeding, and in 1887 and 1888 
there were thousands of thistles on his land in full seed. These 
seeds were blown by the wind on to the plaintiff's adjoining field, 
where they took root and did damage. The plaintiff sued the 
defendant for such damage in the Leicester County Court. The 
judge of that court left to the jury the question whether the 
defendant in not cutting the thistles had been guilty of negligence, 
and the jury found that he had, whereupon the judge entered judg- 
ment for the plaintiff. The defendant appealed. Upon the hearing of 
* Reported in the Law Reports, 21 Q.B.D., p. G56. 
