YEW TREES IN BOUNDARY FENCES. 
193 
It seems that about seventeen years ago the burial board at 
Amersham, Bucks, obtained a piece of land for the purposes 
of a cemetry, and fenced it round with a drawf wall about 
two feet high, in which at two places there were openings 
filled up with iron railings, also about two feet high, on 
the top of the wall. In the hopes of making their enclosure 
oramental as well as useful, the board planted two small yew 
trees about four feet inside the iron railings, and if the trees 
had never grown we should probably never have heard of 
them. In the course of time, however, they did grow, and 
the branches protruded through and beyond the railings, so 
as to project over an adjoining meadow, which, two years 
before the alleged cause of action, the plaintiff, Mr. Crow- 
hurst, had hired to pasture his horse in for a term of three 
years. Now, whether the planting of a couple of yew trees 
adds very much to the natural beauty of a place or not, is 
more or less a matter of opinion; but certain it is that the 
feat is not unattended with risk, owing to the poisonous 
qualities of the leaves, twigs, and berries. After the plaintiff 
had occupied the field for two years, his horse, which was 
feeding in the meadow, ate that portion of one of the yew 
trees which projected over the field, the wall and railings 
not being sufficiently high to prevent a horse from so eating, 
and died from the effects of the poison contained in what he 
ate. The plaintiff brought an action against the board in the 
Chesham County Court, and obtained judgment for £21 and 
costs. Had the board been a private individual, it is possible 
that the matter would have ended here; but, like railway 
companies when they are beaten by a passenger on a point 
involving perhaps a shilling, the board appealed, and the 
case came before the Exchequer Division. The County 
Court judge found (his finding as to facts being accepted 
by the superior court)—first, that the yew trees were so 
planted, and grew with the knowledge of the defendants, as 
to preclude the supposition that they came into position by 
mere accident ; secondly, that the plaintiff was ignorant of 
the existence of the yew trees. The result of the first finding 
is, that the defendants were responsible for whatever might be 
the direct consequences of the original planting. As to the 
second, the plaintiff’s knowledge or ignorance was material. 
Had he known of the yew trees, and had he chosen to have 
turned his horse into a meadow where he could have eaten of 
them, he would have been guilty of contributory negligence. 
It does not, however, appear what skilled witnesses were 
called at the trial to speak to the poisonous qualities of the 
yew tree, or what evidence was adduced to prove that the 
