WARREN FARM. PROFIT and Loss AccoUNT for Year ending September 29, 1896. Capital £1,5 Area 400 Acres. DR. Ci DR. WARREN FARM. PROFIT and Loss ACCOUNT for Year ending September 29, 1897. Capital £3,320. Area 400 Acres. CR. 1897. Live Stock 234 15 0 Cattle 658 อ 0 Sheep 979 0 0 Pigs 96 2 0 Pigs 39 16 0 Poultry Poultry 1,311 7 0 1,693 16 0 0 0 Hay 193 6 6 Tillages 411 5 0 Seeds. Stores. Fodder Draining Fixtures Manure Implements Hay 200 0 0 Winter Oats 15 Spring Oats 20 Bean 10 180 3,871 8 11 To PURCHASES. Horses 182 10 0 Horses Live Stock Cattle 1,293 1 3 Cattle 1,265 18 6 Sheep 1,026 7 2 Wool 6 Pigs 77 14 7 198 10 10 Feeding Stuffs Fodder for Horses Oats 11 10 0 Rent of Shooting 163 8 8804 9320 and Honse, &c. Faggots and Stones 30 13 4 17 15 0 4,239 9 7 Tillages Rent of Farm,&c. Insurance. Implements Veterinary Sur- Labour Wages Coal DR. To VALUATION, 1897. WARREN FARM. Capital £4,22% Area 499 Acres PROFIT and Loss ACCOUNT for Year ending September 29, 1898. 557 0 0 998 0 0 133 6 0 17 O 0 1,705 6 0 277 0 01 200 0 197 9 8 15 0 311 8 54 2 3 13 9 40 14 48 17 8 9 14 0 57 5 6 25 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 Acres. Acres. Wheat 49 Wheat 463 Barley 73 Barley 61 155 To PURCHASES. 1563 791 10 0 Live Stock 0 Feeding Stuffs Fodder for Horses- Oats, &c. 1,882 8 0 Live Stock 107 15 4 Manures 51 14 1 Hay Rent of Shooting 3,058 11 1 Implements Blacksmith Veterinary Sur geon Rostage and Stationery Labour Wages Threshing 29 18 C 354 8 6 Faggots and House, &c. 36 10 0 59 11 8 7 16 10 Grass Seeds re 67 8 G 4 00 980 612 4 8 11 3 0 73 3 10 Cultivating 14 5 0 Fee for Super vision. 4,083 8 € £8,312 6 9 £8,312 6 707 THE LAW OF TRESPASS. To introduce the subject which it is proposed in this communication to discuss, no words could be more appropriate than those of Sir William Blackstone, the greatest commentator on the laws of England, who writes: 1 Trespass in its largest and most extensive sense signifies any transgression or offence against the law of nature, of society, or of the country in which we live, whether it relates to a man's person or his property. But in the limited and confined sense in which we are at present to consider it, it signifies no more than an entry on another man's ground without a lawful authority, and doing some damage, however inconsiderable, to his real property. For the right of meum and tuum, or property in lands, being once established, it follows as a necessary consequence that this right must be exclusive; that is, that the owner may retain to himself the sole use and occupation of his soil; every entry, therefore, without the owner's leave, and especially if contrary to his express order, is a trespass or transgression. The Roman laws seem to have made a direct prohibition necessary in order to constitute this injury: but the law of England, justly considering that much inconvenience may happen to the owner before he has an opportunity to forbid the entry, has carried the point much farther, and has treated every entry upon another's lands (unless by the owner's leave, or in some very particular cases) as an injury or wrong, for satisfaction of which an action of trespass will lie, but determines the quantum of that satisfaction by considering how far the offence was wilful or inadvertent, and by estinating the value of the actual damage sustained. The particular form of trespass to the consideration whereof our attention is confined is that which the law knows as trespass quare clausum fregit, that is by breaking his close, so called because every man's land is in the eye of the law inclosed and set apart from his neighbours, and that either by a visible and material fence, as when one field is divided from another by a hedge, or by an ideal invisible boundary existing only in contemplation of law, as when one man's land adjoins another's in the same field.2 Trespass, then, for our present purpose, may be tersely defined as "an unwarrantable entry on another's soil." But it is not every unauthorised entry that can properly be described as unwarrantable, for in some cases the trespass is justifiable, or rather entry on another's land or house shall not in those cases be accounted trespass at all; as if a man comes thither to demand or pay money there payable, or to execute in a legal manner the process of the law. Also a man may justify entering into an inn or public-house without the leave of the owner first specially asked, because when a man professes the keeping of such inn or public-house, he thereby gives a general license to any person to enter his doors. So a landlord may justify entering to distrain for rent,3 and the entry will 3 3 Bl, 212. 13 Bl. 208. 2 3 Bl. 209. also be excused if it can be shown that it was committed in selfdefence in order to escape from some pressing danger or apprehended peril, or in defence of the possession of a man's goods and chattels, or cattle, sheep, or domestic animals; for "if I drive my beasts along the highway, and my beasts enter your land and eat the herbage thereof, and I come freshly and chase them out of your land, you shall not have any action against me, because the chasing them was lawful. So if my goods have been taken by you, and placed on your land, I may justify my entry on your land for the purpose of retaking them." 1 Again, if the trespass, although not legally justifiable, is not of an insulting or wilful and persevering nature, and no actual damage has been done, and no question of title is involved, the damages recoverable will probably be merely nominal, whilst on the other hand if the entry is made after notice or warning not to trespass, or is a wilful and impertinent intrusion upon a man's domestic privacy, or an insulting invasion of his proprietary rights, a very serious cause of action will arise, and exemplary damages may be awarded. So that although the offence of trespass does not (as under the Roman law) depend upon a previous warning or notice having been given, yet a wilful disregard of such a prohibition will aggravate the injury, and may influence the extent to which the remedy will be applied. Where a trespass has been committed the remedy which is applicable in all cases is by action in the High Court or County Court for the recovery of damages, and claiming, in proper cases, an injunction restraining the repetition of the offence. This, however, is at best an expensive process, and where the trespasser is a person of no means, and unable to pay any damages or costs, the so-called remedy is practically illusory. 2 In cases, therefore, where the trespass is wilful and malicious, the law has attempted to provide an alternative procedure by summary prosecution under the Malicious Damage Act 1861, which is generally supposed to be designed to meet the many small but annoying trespasses to which farmers and others are too often subjected. Whether the object of the Act has been fully attained is a question which can only be answered by those who were responsible for its enactment, but, whatever may have been the intention of its framers, it is certain that the Act in its practical operation falls far short of preventing unwarrantable entries upon the farmer's lands, and fails to supply a convenient method of dealing with those by whom his privacy is invaded. It will suffice for us to consider two sections only, viz. the 24th and the 52nd. The 24th section enacts that whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously destroy, or damage with intent to destroy, any cultivated root or plant used for the food of man or beast, or for medicine, or for distilling, or for dyeing, or for or in the course 1 Catesby, arg. 6 Ed. 4, 7 pl. 18. Goodwyn v. Cheveley, 4 H. & N. 631. * 24 & 25 Vict. c. 97. |