174 
Overhanging Trees. 
He denied knowledge of there being a yew bush in a corner of bis own 
meadow. The veterinary surgeon proved making a post-mortem examination 
of the body of the animal, which revealed the cause of death to he yew 
poisoning. He noticed that the yew near which the horse was lying had 
been recently nibbled, and the position in which the animal lay led him to 
believe that it had dropped down dead when turning away from defendants’ 
yew. The witness was cross-examined at considerable length with a view to 
showing that animals had been known to walk a mile after eating yew before 
dying ; which he explained was due to the fact that they ate on a full 
stomach, whereas a horse that ate on an empty one would drop immediately. 
As there appeared to be considerable difference of opinion respecting the 
situation of the yews, his Honour ordered a view of the spot, and the jury 
proceeded to the spot in conveyances. On their return the defendants’ 
counsel contended that there was no case to go to the jury, and claimed 
a nonsuit on the ground that, there being other trees accessible, there was 
no evidence to show that his clients’ trees caused the death. He also 
argued that the hedge and ditch were, by presumption of law, defendants’ 
property, and that, even granting for the purposes of argument, though he 
denied the fact, that the animal ate of defendants’ yew and died, it could 
not have done so without coming on to the land in the ditch, and there- 
fore was trespassing; so that defendants were not liable. He dwelt on 
this point at considerable length, and further argued that his Honour 
was not warranted in leaving it to the jury to determine which tree the 
animal ate from. Evidence was called for the defence, which went to show 
that not only were the defendants’ trees nibbled, but also the one in Hunt’s 
garden, one in an adjoining field, the gate of which a witness said was open 
at night, and a small bush behind some hurdles in plaintiff’s own field. His 
Honour, in summing up, went against the defendants on the point raised as 
to trespass, saying that though it might apply under certain circumstances, it 
did not apply to a horse, which was not a sentient being. He also laid it 
down that if the jury thought the horse had eaten of defendants’ trees, 
although it had eaten of the others, they must find for the plaintiff ; but 
if they thought the identity of the tree from which it had eaten was not 
proved by the evidence they must find for the defendants. He also 
thought they would be justified in finding for the defendants if they were 
of opinion that the animal ate from the bush in plaintiff’s field, it being 
proved on the view that there was one, though plaintiff did not previously 
know of it. The jury, after consultation, in answer to the Judge’s question, 
said they were satisfied that the animal ate from defendants’ trees ; that 
they were not satisfied that it ate from other trees, nor that it ate from 
plaintiff’s bush. They therefore found a verdict for the plaintiff for 221., 
for which amount judgment was given, with costs. 
The second case 1 points out the rights which a person whose land 
is overhung by his neighbour’s trees has to abate the nuisance caused 
thereby. According to the report of the case from which this note is 
taken it appeared that some of the branches of certain ancient oak 
trees growing on the plaintiff’s land overhung the defendant’s land, 
and as the defendant alleged, obstructed the entrance to his farm- 
yard. The defendant without giving any notice to the plaintiff cut off 
the overhanging branches, the points at which some of the branches 
were cut being a few inches within the boundary of the plaintiff’s 
Lemmon v. Webb. Weekly Notes of Cases, 1894, p. 26. 
