184 
A iiecent decision in a Common Law trial has roused the 
fears of more than one of our readers, who either have 
been using, or are wishing to use, the saw and the 
pruning knife pretty freely in their gardens. One gen¬ 
tleman (R. F., of O) asks, “ May I not lop off a large 
branch from a lime which totally obstructs the view 
from my library window ? ” And the reply we now 
make to him we make to all who inquire of us how far 
they may venture to lop their landlord’s trees, A sic of 
him permission before you commence operations. 
The facts of the trial in question are briefly these:—A 
gentleman occupying a house, which has a small garden 
before it, in St. John’s Wood, lopped so extensively an 
Acacia, a Birch, a Laburnum, and a Weeping Willow, 
for the purpose of obtaining a view of the high road, 
that his landlord estimated the depreciation of his pro¬ 
perty to be one-fourth of its rental of T3 per week. The 
tenant maintained that he had made the trees hand¬ 
somer; but the jury gave the landlord T30 damages, 
and beyond all doubt they were right in their decision. 
Very few persons would consider a residence improved 
by having it exposed to view from the high road; but 
if it were otherwise, no man either according to law or 
to reason (and they are not always synonymous) has a 
right to make any permanent or long-enduring altera¬ 
tions of another’s property, without first obtaining his 
consent. 
The law has ever been scrupulously and wisely pro¬ 
tective of everything growing in our gardens and 
orchards; for, were it otherwise, every such inclosure 
might be ravaged by the mattock and saw of any tenant, 
however brutally insensible to vegetable beauty. As long 
ago as the time of Sir Edward Coke—for even then his 
contemporary, Lord Bacon, had acknowledged “ garden¬ 
ing as the purest of earthly pleasures”—it was determined 
that a tenant is liable to be 6ued for waste, if he cuts 
down any fruit trees in the garden or orchard he holds; 
and a similar decision has been in cases where trees of 
any kind have been cut down which afforded a defence 
or shelter to the house. 
Many persons seem to think, and most erroneous is 
such an opinion, that they may plant and uproot in the 
garden they rent without any other control than the 
dictates of their own fancy. Now we have already seen 
that tenants have no such right relative to the trees 
they find planted at the time they enter upon the pre¬ 
mises. But the law wisely goes further than this, and 
says that tenants, not being nurserymen, shall not 
remove any plant , even which they themselves have 
inserted in the soil they hold, if, by so doing, they de¬ 
preciate its value; and we will quote as an instance the 
case in which a Mrs. Mackie, having planted a large 
quantity of box edging, attempted to have it removed 
when her tenancy of the garden expired. Her counsel 
in arguing that she was entitled to remove the box said, 
“ The question is whether any damage results to the 
freehold? Could not a tenant remove flowers which he 
had planted in the ground?” To which three judges 
thus replied:—“ Mr. Justice Littledale. —No. Chief Jus¬ 
tice Denman. —A border of box is intended to be perma¬ 
[June 27. 
nent. Mr. Justice Parle.—It might a3 well be contended 
that a tenant could take up hedges.” 
Now this, again, is not only law but good reason. If 
a tenant cuts out the soil into borders and beds, edging 
these with box, this edging can by no possibility be 
removed without disfiguring the garden, and depreciating 
the rentable value of the property. It is doubtful 
whether the dictum of Mr. Justice Littledale is to be 
taken as literally ruling that a tenant has no right to 
remove any flower that he has planted in the soil he 
rents. We think this doubtful, because, as Lord 
Kenyon observed in another case, “ In modern times 
the leaning has always been in favour of the tenant, in 
support of the interests of trade, which is become the 
pillar of the state. What tenant will lay out his money 
in costly improvements of the land, if he must leave 
everything behind him which can be said to be annexed 
to it ? ” 
The rule established by all the decisions seems to be, 
that the tenant has no right to remove, or to alter ex¬ 
tensively, the trees and plants he finds upon the land ; 
and that having once planted trees, shrubs, or other 
plants, he has no right to remove them, if by so doing 
he depreciates the value of the property. Thus in 
another case Lord Ellenborough ruled that an action 
would lie against the tenant of a garden for ploughing 
up strawberry beds, although it may be usual for the in¬ 
coming tenant to pay the out-going an appraised value, 
and the tenant who ploughed up the strawberry beds 
may have paid the former occupier accordingly. 
We have endeavoured to explain, and to offer as a 
warning to our readers, the law relative to such cases ; 
but, to avoid litigation, it is always much the wisest 
course to have an agreement in writing, signed by the 
landlord, giving the tenant permission to remove plants, 
&c., which he may have inserted during his tenure of 
the property. 
On the tenth of this month the friends of the cultivators 
of the soil had to deplore the death of Mr. James Smith 
of Deanston, a man who in various public efforts had 
rendered no mean service to agriculture; and his labours 
to benefit mankind were not confined to the enrichment 
of the soil; he struggled, and successfully too, to remove 
from ill-cultivated lands their stagnant water; and yet 
he was equally energetic in his attempts to promote the 
cause of sewage irrigation. He well knew how intimately 
connected with an increased attention to the health of 
the animal world, is the application of the results of 
better house drainage, and more copious supplies of 
water to the enrichment of the soil. He was born at 
Glasgow, on the 3rd of January, 1789 ; and was, there¬ 
fore, in the 62nd year of his age. 
His career, thus briefly sketched in the North British 
Mail, is full of interest to every one who regards, even 
with only moderate attention, the good objects to which 
we have alluded:— 
“ His death took place at Kingencleucli, the residence 
of a cousin of Mr. Smith, near Mauchline, in Ayrshire, 
where he was staying for a temporary period. Although 
THE COTTAGE GARDENER. 
