194 
YEW TREES IN BOUNDARY FENCES. 
defendants knew the yew tree to be poisonous, or that the 
fact is common knowledge among people having to do with 
cattle. The defendants' knowledge would be immaterial, 
because ignorance of the poisonous qualities of the tree would 
not diminish their responsibility for the consequences of their 
own act in planting the tree there. “ It is," said the Lord 
Chief Baron, “ distinctly found by the County Court judge, 
that f the fact that cattle frequently browse on the leaves and 
branches of yew trees within reach, and not unfrequently are 
poisoned thereby, is generally known;' and by this finding, 
which is in accordance with experience, we are bound." 
The question to be decided resolved itself into this : Was 
the act of the board in originally placing this tree, or the 
omission to keep it within their own boundary, a legal wrong 
against the occupier of the adjoining field, which, when 
damage arose from it, would give the latter a cause of action ? 
Ultimately the court held that the plaintiff had such a cause 
of action, and the decision of the County Court judge was 
therefore affirmed. 
The principle of law upon which the decision was based is 
contained in Fletcher v. Rylands" (14 L.T.,N.S. 526). In 
that case the judges said, “ The person who for his own 
purposes brings on his land, and collects and keeps there, 
anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it at 
his peril, and if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable 
for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its 
escape." 
The case of “Crowhurst v. Amersham Burial Board," it 
will be observed, illustrates the maxim Sicutere tuout alienum 
von loedas. The decision proceeds solely on the ground that 
the defendants had a perfect right to plant two yew trees, or 
two hundred if they pleased, but that if any damage to others 
arose from the planting, the defendants would be liable. 
Herein the case differs from the earlier one. In “ Erskine 
v. Adeane" (L. R., 8 Ch., 756), a farmer's cattle were poisoned 
by eating yew leaves, through the alleged default of the 
landlord; and it was held that there was no implied warranty 
on the part of a lessor who lets land for agricultural purposes 
that no noxious plants are grow ing on the demised premises. 
This was an administration suit, and there w^ere reasons why 
the actual merits of the case were not fully gone into ; but the 
facts are not identical with those in the Amersham case. 
In “ Lawrence v. Jenkins" (L. R., 8 Q. B. 275), the 
plaintiff's cows died through eating yew leaves on the 
defendant's land ; but the plaintiff succeeded because the 
injury arose from the neglect of the defendant to keep a fence 
