Added on 30/12/2011Law Case (upto 1950)

Ponting v. Noakes and others. 1894


Queens Bench Division, April 10th 1894. Charles & Henn Collins.



This appeal case involved the death of a horse due to the consumption of Yew foliage. Judgment was originally made in the Andover County Court against the defendant, who owned the Yew tree.

A land owners horse ate some Yew leaves from a neighbouring tree. The tree was growing in a neighbours field which was separated from his own by a fence and ditch. Both the ditch and fence belonged to the neighbour with the ditch forming the boundary, (the fence is located on the neighbours side of the ditch). The Yew tree had branches which extended over the fence and ditch, but not extending so far as to overhang the horse owners field. The horse had reached over the ditch and eaten the foliage.

It was contended that the principle laid down in Fletcher v Rylands was applicable here where an owner of a property is responsible for the escape of something on his land.

But this was not the case in this situation as the Yew branches were completely contained within the boundaries of the defendants land.

Charles, J said,

"I do not see that they can be made responsible for the eating of these Yew leaves by an animal which, in order to reach them, had come upon his land. The hurt which the animal received was due to his wrongful intrusion. He had no right to be there and the owner therefore has no right to complain."

It was also contended that the very fact that the Yew tree growing so close to the neighbouring field which is used for livestock, constitutes a 'trap', where instinctively, an animal would seek to eat it.

Henn Collins, J said,

"Does it, then, make any difference that a Yew tree is likely to tempt a horse to tresspass? I think not, unless it were proved that it was put or kept there for the purpose of enticing the animal to his destruction......
........As already pointed out, a yew tree near a fence is a lawful and usual thing, and it would be strange if the owner should find himself fixed with varying obligations in respect thereof according to the varying uses to which the adjoining owner chose to put his land."

The appeal was granted and the original judgment against the yew tree owner overturned with costs awarded.

Although the above information is deemed to be true and correct, it is possible that errors may exist, henceforth the AIE can not accept any responsibility for any action which may arise from its use. It is recommended that prior to using such information for legal purposes or when instigating any kind of legal action, advice be first sought from a solicitor. Please read our Terms of Use.