"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jon Rouse wrote:
In article , Nick Maclaren
writes

Some 40 years ago, there was a case where a farmer tried to get
an injunction to prevent gypsies from picking mushrooms from his
fields. The case hinged on whether the mushrooms were his
property (i.e. Norman rather than Roman law),


I'm intrigued - briefly what is the distinction Norman v Roman?

pk

In article ,
PaulK wrote:

Some 40 years ago, there was a case where a farmer tried to get
an injunction to prevent gypsies from picking mushrooms from his
fields. The case hinged on whether the mushrooms were his
property (i.e. Norman rather than Roman law),

I'm intrigued - briefly what is the distinction Norman v Roman?

In this conext, whether wild resources are the property of the
'landowner' or nobody's property. No, I don't know the exact
details, but that is the principle.

Anglo-Saxon law (basically Roman) had some laws on such things,
mainly to protect managed coppicing etc., but I don't know the
details. The Normans introduced quite strong property rights
over game, but this did not apply to plants (including fungi, in
law) until the infamous recent Countryside Act.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren,
University of Cambridge Computing Service,
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QH, England.
Email:
Tel.: +44 1223 334761 Fax: +44 1223 334679