I think that Charles infers that he also thought that the book was a little pricey!TO wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 6:36 pmIn answer to a) Mynors doesn't list any other cases. He only states, on the basis of the referenced case, that the tree/fruit owner can collect their fruit. He does go on to explain why the tree/fruit owner can get their fruit; because to deny them would constitute theft which is a criminal offence, or possibly, depending on what you do with the fruit, conversion, a civil offence. He doesn't suggest the theft of the fruit is qualified on the basis of where it is growing. Although you clearly disagree, considering the theft of the fruit to occur only when the tree is in a hedge.thin and crispy wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 12:58 amAs you've read it TO, what does it say specifically about the cases when:
a) The tree is not in a hedge (i.e. not as in the 17th C judgement)
b) The fruit owner deliberately or negligently deposits his fruit on the neighbour's land?
Useful to know that you think Mynors is reasonably priced.
In answer to b)The title of the book gives a clue to its contents. It is not a book on neighbour disputes. If you have a problem with your neighbour there is legislation to deal with that, and the Courts have the power to grant injunctions.
That would have been better off not mentioned here. You cannot avoid your duty of care just because your neighbour is eccentric.
I consider Mynors book reasonably priced because there is no other similar authoritative tome.