Litchfield enquirer., 1841-03-04
! No. 40. WHOLE No. 768.

4
, hand' the 10th of, Mass. Reports, $50, Sum.
ner VS.. Finegan, presents 4 case where Al,
action was sustained against the defendant
tor suffering tie Spouts OF his honse n, III
teaky, to the plaintiffs damage: A case
more directly in point is that Of Pickering
vs.. Rudd, 4 Campbeil's Reports, go, decided
in 1915, wherein it was held that when the
defendant nails to his own wall a board
which overhangs the plaintiff close, an &C,
ton Of trespass on the case will be sustained
against the defendant. =" ~.'< '"
On the question, whether the proprietor
of Overhanging fruit has right 70 pick it up
after it has dropped ON his neighbor's land,
!he law is perhaps sornewhat unsettled. In
Milton VS.. Fmdrye, ROphatn's Reports, 1e9,
decided in the 22d year Of James Il Judge Do
deridge quotes with appreciation case from
the Year Books, to the following effect: az
tree grow In hedge, and the fruit fall into
another mans land, the owner may fetch it
in tho other mans land. But in Anthony
VS.! hancy, a BiHgham's Reports, l92, deci-
drd m 1882, the Court limit the operation Of
this rule to cases where fruit may thus fall
by accident; and Gritty, in his General
Practice, cites this Inst case as modifying
| and settling the law upcu this poi1t.-e
Whether fruit falling at ifs maturity from,
an overhanging branch can be Considered as
coming within this rule Of accident, or
whether license to gather must not, be pre-
Sumed in the absence of notice to remove
the nuisance, are questions which the other
fiscertailed rights and remedies of the pro-
prietor who Is intruded upon, make of very
little practical Importance. o., 74.,.sf -
The Committee believe that the law NJ,
this subject, as they have stated IL, though
perhaps widely different from the common
belief, will yet be found SO equitable in its
principles and so fair in its operations, as to
call for no action Of the Legislature They
have gone tho more minutely into details, as
they have reason TO believe tina. ignorance
of the real state Of the law and The exact
rights of parties has led to much petty an
noynnce and i'll feeling between adjoining
proprietors: The subject, although one up.
parentiy of a most trifing character, has
been source Of great dissention among tho
proPrietors and juFists of the continent as
well as Of England, and was thought wor.
thy by the great men who framed the Napoa
leon Code, ofbeing settled by specific and
minute enactment. In the Digest of the
Civil Law, it is in one place laid down (lib.
AZ, y 81 that though tree be nourished
by roots which" strike into the land of a
neIghbor, yet it shall still belong to him In
whose ground it was planted" AND in an
other part OF the same digest, (lib ILL l3l
it Is said In substance, that If O tree be plant.
ed in one mans land and derives its nourish-
Tnent from arother's, it shall belong to him
from whose land II is nourished and If it is
only partly nourished in his land, il shall
belong In common to the proprietor of the
land on which. It. was planted, and Of the
land by which it is partly nourished.
Some Of the provisions of the Code Napo.
trunk 81, h IL n sh dsitaee stedbe
actually existing, or by constant and acknowledged
sages; and In default OF regulations and usages
y the distance Of metres from the line which
separates estates in trees Of lofty trunk, and at
the distance Of half metre in the case ofother trees
and quick hedges. r '''s ...- "t'
Art. 672 A neighbor may require trees and hedg-
es plan,ed at essdis,ance. to be pulled up;
ale whose property. is ovsrshadowed by the
branches Of his neighbors trees. may compel'he lat
ter to cut off such branches. =
mi be The roots wkicf, ensroacR on bis estate,
he has right 10 cut them therein himself" -.'
Your Committee repeat that neither the
above regulations, SO far as they differ from
our own law, nor any other which have oc.
CURED to them, appear at once so well adept
ed TO secure the rights Of parties, and 80 free
from the imputation of harassing and arG:s
trhry interference, as the rules OF common
law now in force In relation 10 this subject.
They, therefore, recommend no legislation,
and ask to be discharged from the further
consideration of the subject. -.
For the Committee, GEO. T. DAVIS.
Progress of Things-When, in 1884,
vessel from the United Suites carried a small
quaniity of Cotton into Liverpool, It was re-
garded as an illegal transaction. People
could not believe that it had been grown in
any State of the Union. About the same
time. duty being proposed in Congress on
tive from South Carolina announced, that
tho g cult;vat;on of Cation was in coyatenlpla-