Contemporary  Agricultural  Law.  145 
liable  for  compensation  for  injury  to  any  workmen  employed 
by  him. 
Strong  v.  Treise  (1909,  1 K.B.,  613  ; 78  L.J.K.B.,  401)  is  a 
case  of  a different  character  and  deals  with  the  employment  of 
children  in  agriculture.  The  child  was  a girl  of  thirteen  years 
and  seven  months  in  the  employment  of  a farmer  to  assist  him 
in  dairy  work.  He  was  summoned  for  so  employing  her  under 
the  Education  Acts,  but  was  held  to  have  committed  no  offence 
as  the  employment  was  justified  by  the  provision  of  Section  1 
of  the  Elementary  Education  (School  Attendance)  Act  (1893) 
Amendment  Act,  1899,  relating  to  the  employment  of  children 
in  agriculture  and  a by-law  made  by  the  Cornwall  County 
Council  thereunder  fixing  thirteen  as  the  minimum  year  for 
exemption  from  school  attendance  of  a child  to  be  employed 
in  agriculture. 
2.  Stock.  There  have  been  several  interesting  cases  which 
relate  to  a farmer’s  liabilities  and  rights  in  respect  of  his 
farm  stock.  In  Higgins  v.  Searle  (100  L.T.,  280  ; 7 L.G.R., 
640),  a sow,  the  property  of  the  defendant,  happened  to  be 
straying  on  the  highway  without,  as  was  found  by  the  jury, 
any  negligence  on  the  defendant’s  part.  A horse  in  a van  pass- 
ing along  the  highway  shied  at  the  sow,  and  a motor  car  coming 
in  the  opposite  direction,  to  avoid  running  into  the  horse  and 
van,  turned  and  came  into  collision  with  a stone  wall  and  was 
damaged.  The  owner  of  the  motor  car  sued  the  defendant  for 
the  injury  caused  to  his  car,  but  it  was  held  that  in  the  absence 
of  negligence  the  defendant,  as  owner  of  the  sow,  was  not  liable 
for  damages  in  respect  of  the  injury  to  the  motor  car.  The 
Court  of  Appeal  before  whom  the  case  came  laid  down  that  a 
farm  animal  straying  on  the  highway  is  one  of  the  ordinary 
risks  taken  by  those  using  the  highway,  and  if  an  accident 
happens  owing  to  those  risks  without  any  negligence  on  the 
part  of  the  owner  of  the  animal  no  legal  consequence  follows. 
In  this  case  the  Court  were  only  following  a previous  case  of 
HadwelU.Righton  (1907,2  K.B.,345;  76  L.J.K.B.,  891)  in  which 
it  was  held  that  the  owner  of  a fowl  straying  on  the  highway 
was  not  liable  in  damages  to  a cyclist  whose  bicycle  was  upset 
by  the  fowl. 
Lowerxj  v.  Walker  (1909,  2 K.B.,  433  ; 78  L.J.K.B.,  874) 
is  a very  important  case  dealing  with  the  liability  of  the 
owner  of  a savage  animal  for  injuries  caused  to  trespassers. 
The  defendant  occupied  a field  in  which  he  placed  a savage 
horse  which  was  known  to  have  bitten  people  on  previous 
occasions.  The  field  was  in  fact  used  by  people  as  a short  cut, 
though  there  was  no  right  of  way  across  it,  and  the  defendant 
had  put  up  boards  warning  trespassers.  The  plaintiff,  who  had 
no  permission  to  enter  the  field,  was  crossing  it,  and  in  so  doing 
VOL.  70.  L 
