Contemporary Agricultural Law. 
185 
6. Commons. Two recent cases on common rights may be 
noticed. In Hope v. Osborne (82 L.J.Ch., 457 ; 1913, 2 Ch., 349) 
the plaintiff was lord of a manor, and as such had a right to 
the soil of two heaths, each of which was 200 acres in extent, 
subject to the rights of commoners to pasture cattle and to 
turf and heather therefrom for fuel and litter. Trees had 
grown up on the heath, and the defendants, who were 
commoners, believing that they were acting within their rights, 
felled the trees as interfering with their rights. It was held 
that they had no right thus to take the law into their own 
hands and abate the alleged nuisance caused by the trees. It 
was said that commoners in such a case, unless they were 
completely excluded from the enjoyment of their rights, should 
resort to the Courts for the purpose of ascertaining and 
enforcing them. In King v. Brown , Durant Co., Lim. 
(82 L.J.Ch., 548 ; 1913, 2 Ch., 416) certain owners of an 
enfranchised copyhold entitled to common of pasture for their 
cattle over the waste of the manor, damaged the herbage 
thereon by conveying goods to and from their premises over 
the waste. It was held that though a mere commoner cannot 
maintain an action against another person having a right of 
common over the same ground, or even against a stranger, for 
a simple trespass such as walking over the grass of the common, 
anything by which the commoner’s right of common is 
disturbed, any unlawful consumption or taking away or des- 
truction of the herbage is actionable, even when done by one 
of the other persons having a right of common over the waste. 
The plaintiff, who was also a commoner, was therefore granted 
an injunction to restrain interference with his right of common. 
7. Miscellaneous. Latham, v. Spillers and Baker, Lim. 
(82 L.J.K.B., 833 ; 1913, 2 K.B. 355) was a case under the 
Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act, 1906. The respondents 
who were poultry food and biscuit manufacturers sold a 
quantity of poultry food without giving to the purchaser an 
invoice stating what were the respective percentages of oil and 
albuminoids contained in it. The food was composed of three 
substances, namely, ( a ) biscuits made by the respondents by 
baking a cereal substance ; ( b ) greaves, the refuse or sediment 
left in making tallow or soap grease, purchased by the respon- 
dents in blocks ; and (c) oyster shells broken to a suitable size. 
The biscuits were broken by the respondents’ machinery to the 
size required, and the greaves chopped to pieces ; the broken 
fragments of biscuits, the pieces of greaves, and the broken 
pieces of oyster shells were then mixed together by the 
machinery and the resulting mixture formed the poultry food. 
It was held that, inasmuch as the biscuits and the greaves, two 
of the ingredients, were articles artificially prepared, the food as 
