A minority of the court, in an able argument, maintained that the erection of telegraph and telephone posts and wires along the roads, fitted with cross-beams adapted for layer after layer of almost countless wires, which necessitate to some extent the destruction of trees along the highways or streets, the occupation of the ground, the filling of the air, the interference with access to or escape from buildings, the increased difficulty of putting out fires, the obstruction of the view, the presentation of unsightly objects to the eye, and the creation of unpleasant noises in the wind, is an actual injury to abutting land along the line, and constitutes a new and increased servitude, for which the land-owner is entitled to a distinct compensation. After the rendering of the majority decision, the legislature very promptly passed a law allowing an owner of land abutting upon a highway along which telegraph or telephone, electric light or electric power, lines shall be constructed, to recover damages to the full extent of the injuries to his property, provided he applies, within three months after such construction, to the mayor and aldermen or selectmen to assess and appraise his damage.[66] [66] St. 1884, c. 306. The public has a right to occupy the highway for travel and other legitimate purposes, and to use the soil, the growing timber, and other materials found within the space of the road, in a reasonable manner, for the purpose of making and repairing the road and the bridges thereon.[67] But the public cannot go upon the land of an adjoining owner without his consent, to remove stones or earth, to repair a bridge or the highway; and if in consequence of such removal the land is injured, by floods or otherwise, he can recover damages therefor.[68] He is not obliged to build or maintain a road fence, except to keep his own animals at home, but if he does build a fence he must set it entirely on his own land; and likewise, if a town constructs an embankment to support a road or bridge, it must keep entirely within the limits of the highway, for if any part of the embankment is built on his land he can collect damages of the town.[69] He may carry water-pipes underground through the highway, or turn a watercourse across the same below the surface, provided he does not deprive the public of their rights in the way.[70] From the time of Edward IV. it has been the settled law that the owner of the soil in the highway is entitled to all the profits of the freehold, the grass and trees upon it and the mines under it. He can lawfully claim all the products of the soil and all the fruit and nuts upon the trees. He may maintain trespass for any injury to the soil or to the growing trees thereon, which is not incidental to the ordinary and legitimate uses of the road by the public. His land in the highway may be recovered in ejectment just the same as any of his other land. No one has any more right to graze his highway land than