186 
Contemporary Agricultural Law. 
a whole was an article artificially prepared “ otherwise than by 
being mixed, broken, ground or chopped ” within the meaning 
of Section 1, Sub-section 2 of the Fertilisers and Feeding Stutfs 
Act, 1906, and that the respondents had therefore committed 
an offence under the Act in failing to supply to the purchaser 
an invoice stating the percentages of oil and albuminoids 
contained in the food as required by that Sub-section. 
In Phillimore v. Watford Rural Council ( x 82 L.J.Ch., 514 ; 
1913, 2 Oh., 434) the question was as to the right of a rural 
district council to discharge the effluent from their sewage 
farm into a channel or ditch made by a landowner for the 
purpose of draining his land. The channel or ditch in question 
was one by which the surface water from the rising ground on 
each side of it found its way and was carried off, but there was 
no constant flow of water in it. The council by the conveyance 
to them of part of their sewage farms had acquired a “ right of 
passage and running of water ” through this ditch. The land- 
owner alleged that sewage effluent had wrongfully been allowed 
to flow into the ditch and caused damage. It was held that 
the. grant of a “ right of passage and running water ” did not 
entitle the council to discharge sewage effluent into the ditch, 
and that although the ditch was a “ sewer ” within the very 
wide definition of that word as including ‘‘sewers and drains 
of every description ” in Section 4 of the' Public Health Act, 
1875 it was not vested in the local authority by this Act being 
excepted by Section 13 of the Act as being “ made by a person 
for his own profit.” The landowner was therefore held to be 
entitled to an injunction to restrain the council from causing 
or permitting sewage or sewage effluent to be discharged into 
the ditch. 
Nuttcdl v. Pickering (82 L.J.K.B., 36 ; 1913, 1 K.B., 14) was 
a case under the Highway Act, 183 d, Section 78 of which enacts 
that any person who shall not keep his waggon, cart, or carriage 
on the near side of the road for the purpose of allowing a free 
passage for other waggons, carts, or carriages shall be liable to 
a penalty. The appellant, the driver of a heavily-laden waggon, 
was on the wrong or off side of the road when a motor 
approached from behind in order to pass. The driver of the 
waggon signalled to the motor car to pass him on the wrong or 
neai side which it did without having been delayed or incon- 
venienced. No other traffic was on that part of the road at the 
time. It was held that no offence had been committed under the 
Act as a free passage was allowed, though Lord Alverstone, C.J., 
in his judgment said ; “ I do not encourage the idea that the 
driver of a vehicle is entitled to keep in the middle of the road 
and compel the drivers of other vehicles to pass him on the 
wrong side.” 
