SKYLARKS. 
303 
on with reasonable convenience.” Although, 
therefore, the trees in the case of Martin vs. 
Boyes, intercepted the view of the King’s Arms 
sign, still, as they did not obstruct the free 
traffic on the road over which they hung, the 
defendants were not justified in lopping them. 
In the second case, where the trees overhang 
the private property of another, it seems clear 
that the owner or tenant of such property may 
lop them, if the owner of the tree refuses so to 
do, after notice; Sic utere tuo ut alienum non Icedas , 
is a well known legal maxim, and no person 
has a right to plant trees so near the boundary 
of his own land, as to cause them to overhang 
the land of 'his neighbor, and to interfere with 
the vegetation, or obstruct the light from it. 
Our readers must, nevertheless, take care how 
they lop their neighbors’ trees ; they must not 
forget that lapse of time may give a person a 
right to continue that which was at first only 
permitted ; and that, although upon the principle 
which makes every continuance of a nuisance a 
new nuisance, giving a fresh cause of action, it 
would seem that the mere fact of the trees having 
overhung another’s land, affords no reason why 
they should continue so to do ; yet, in a case 
which occurred some time ago, where a person 
being sued for a nuisance, occasioned by the 
manufactory of candles, defended himself on 
the ground that three years before the plaintiff 
became possessed of his property, the defend¬ 
ant had lawfully enjoyed his factory, and car¬ 
ried on the trade of a chandler there. Mr. J. 
Park said, “ 20 years’ use would legalise the nui¬ 
sance.” They should also be quite sure that 
the trees do overhang their land; they must 
be careful to ascertain where the boundary of 
their property is ; for nothing is more common 
than for a person to suppose that his boundary 
is where, upon strict inquiry, it turns out not to 
be. 
That “every one should know as much law as 
will enable him to keep himself clear of it,” is 
an old saying, in the wisdom of which we have 
no doubt that these defendants by this time fully 
concur.— Gardeners' Chronicle. 
Red Antwerp Raspberry.— We hear of mag¬ 
nificent returns of labor, land, and capital de¬ 
voted to this splendid fruit. One horticulturist, 
in Connecticut, realised $800 for his last year’s 
crop, on half an acre, while the huckster to 
whom he sold them gained nearly as much more. 
$3,000 per acre is rather tall picking for an 
acre of small fruit; but at present prices, this 
amount can be realised. 
SKYLARKS. 
The farmers proper , and the farmers poetic, 
seem to have a conflicting time of it in England, 
as to the injuries and benefits conferred to the 
farming interest by this long celebrated bird, 
as we learn from the Agricultural Gazette; the 
profit farmer insisting that the skylark docs 
more damage to the springing and ripening 
grain than it compensates for in its destruction 
of worms and other insects which prey upon 
them. 
Not being Englishmen, we cannot well judge 
of the merits of this controversy; but a reading 
of the arguments of the disputants, pro and con , 
demonstrates most clearly that is nearly a drawn 
game with the poor bird itself. Our youthful 
reading taught us to love and reverence the sky¬ 
lark, and we confess to a present sorrow in hear¬ 
ing the virtues of our long cherished bird charg¬ 
ed as doubtful. But, like the hares and the 
foxes, we presume the skylark will ultimately 
come out the victor, as his delicious song, and 
poetic reputation, will let him off among the 
landed proprietors, in spite of his occasional pec¬ 
cadillos, as the depredations made by the afore¬ 
said hares and foxes are excused for the fun of 
the sportsman. 
It is yet a nice question in this country, as to the 
benefits rendered, and injuries inflicted by some 
of our own field songsters. And we trust that 
some of our ornithological friends may find the 
time to examine and report more fully than has 
yet been done, on the good or bad qualities of 
some of the birds which frequent our farms, and 
whose reputation for the greater good or evil 
they do is somewhat equivocal. 
MR. VAIL’S SHORTHORNS. 
Allow me a space in the columns of your 
paper, to say, that it may not be inappropriate 
to inform the breeders of cattle that at my pub¬ 
lic sale of shorthorns, on the 26th of June last, 
I retained about 14 head for breeding purposes, 
and that the largest proportion of these are of 
the Bates importation of cows and heifers, out 
of their get by my Bates’ bulls, Duke of Well¬ 
ington and Meteor. 
The latter bull, with the fine bull Fortune, 
will, this season, be bred to my herd, or until I 
receive from England a fresh and appropriate 
cross, to breed to the heifers of Wellington and 
Meteor. I now have an order in England to 
purchase for me a young Duchess bull out of 
one of the celebrated Duchess cows, bred by 
the late eminent breeder, Thomas Bates, Esq., 
and also an order for two heifers possessing 
the blood of the same herd, and to enable me 
