VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
629 
constipation, in other words, it absorbed the juices secreted b)r the 
stomach and intestines, and hindered and prevented digestion ; pro¬ 
ducing constipation, and fever and death as the consequences. 
Evidence was given in support of the facts of the case, and Mr. 
Gwillim proceeded to address the Court for the defence, when his 
Honour directed his attention to the opinion of Mr. Justice Black¬ 
burn laid down in Growcott v. Smith, Exchequer reports, that, “As 
a general rule of law a man was bound to use his property so as not 
to injure his neighbour.” It appeared to him that “ when a party 
altered things from their normal condition so as to render them 
dangerous to any acquired rights, the law casts on him the obliga¬ 
tion of fixing the danger so as not to be injurious to those rights.” 
In the course of further argument his Honour held that it was 
incumbent on the defendant to have “fenced” the trees, so as to 
have rendered them innocuous to the acquired rights of the plaintiff. 
He thought it abundantly proved in this case that the cattle died 
from the effects of browsing on the oak trees. In his opinion it was 
an analogous case to one wherein an appeal was made against the 
decision of a brother judge of his in a county court of Flintshire. 
That case was one in which the mineral rights and surface rights in 
some land belonged to different parties : that is, the landlord let the 
surface rights, and reserved the mineral rights to himself, with the 
power to break through the surface at any time—making shafts for 
minerals. He did enter upon those minerals, and made shafts upon 
the land in the occupation of the farmer, who contended that it was 
necessary—but the owner contended that it was not necessary—for 
him to f^ence the shaft. One of the farmer’s cattle fell down the 
shaft; and it was held that the proprietor was using his own rights 
in a way that was dangerous to the rights of the person who was in 
enjoyment of the field, and that he was bound to fence the shaft. 
That, his Honour continued, seemed to him to be a precisely analo¬ 
gous case to this, and it was a very recent case, being reported in 
either the first or second volume, he could not exactly say which, of 
the “Law Reports”—he thought in the Exchequer, Williams v. 
Growcott, 4, West and Smith. In this case the plaintiff* had already 
acquired rights—the right of occupation, and the enjoyment of 
rights running over the w’hole land. But a perfect stranger to him 
came upon the land and exercised certain rights, uses his property, 
cuts down trees, and uses the property in such a way as to be 
dangerous to the occupation of the land ; and, carrying out those 
principles, he w^as bound to fence this danger betw'een himself and 
the occupier of the land. His Honour then gave judgment for the 
plaintiff’ for the full amount claimed .—Hereford Journal. 
