192 
YEW TREES IN BOUNDARY FENCES. 
causing any alarm or fear, instruct the public, and warn 
them; under such circumstances, all children should be 
watched, and dogs and other animals ought to be confined 
and kept from strange dogs. 
Disinfection. 
All the slaughtered dogs should be buried in a place set 
apart for the purpose, and at a good depth ; the skins should 
not be removed from their bodies, but should have large cuts 
made crossways in them ; and they ought never to be thrown 
into ditches, ponds, or streams, as is so frequently done. All 
the wood-work, straw, shavings, in connection with kennels 
should be burnt, or thoroughly soaked with carbolic acid, 
Condy’s fluid, or some other powerful disinfectant. The floor 
of the kennel, stable, or place in which the animal has been 
kept, should be well scrubbed with boiling water, and covered 
with quicklime, or any agent noted for its power of destroy¬ 
ing contagious matter. The same should be done with the 
walls of the place as high as the dog could reach. The 
chain that attached the animal, and other iron-work which 
may have been in contact with it, should be heated in the 
fire, and all necessary precautions adopted, as in diseases 
which are communicable by a fixed or even volatile contagium. 
With reference to disinfection, it may be worth referring to 
Hertwig’s experiments. After giving a number of dogs the 
saliva and blood of rabid animals without result, he put five 
of them into kennels where mad dogs had been, put the 
collars of these upon their necks, attached them by the same 
chains, made them lie down upon the same straw, but yet 
none of them became rabid .—The Live Stock Journal. 
YEW TREES IN BOUNDARY FENCES. 
The late Action, “ Crowhurst v. The Amersham Burial Board.” 
When one man’s cattle is poisoned by eating another 
man’s yew 7 tree, the aggrieved one usually brings his action 
for damages in the County Court, if he brings one at all, and 
the peaceful nature of the countryman commonly induces him 
to accept the decision of the local Solomon as final. Such, at 
least, would seem to be the case, for only a few instances are 
to be found of the superior tribunals having been called upon 
to adjudicate between the owner of poisoned cattle and the 
proprietor of the poisonous yew. This lack of authority 
makes the case of “ Crowhurst v. The Amersham Burial 
Boarcl v all the more noticeable, particularly as the question 
involved is treated of from a fresh point of view. 
