Can he, therefore, adopting the interpretation placed by the Chief Justice on the word “permit” in Macartney v. Miller, be said to have permitted this fire to have escaped from his land. As I have pointed out, more care is required in this dry and windy country on the part of those bringing fire upon their land for the purposes of husbandry than where the conditions are not so favourable to the spread of fire. And the only care that should satisfy a cautious man would be to take precautions against its spreading until certain that the fire was extinguished. So long as fire remained in the burnt stack there was danger of its being scattered by a high wind, as happened in this case, and if this could be prevented, as I believe it could, then by failing to prevent it from passing from his land he permitted it to escape, and is therefore liable in damages to any person whose property was injured or destroyed.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.