Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1889-01-18
Inc Inv of Aa,rr.s Possession.

Cursed be he that removeth his neigh
boris landmark, and all the people shall
say, Amen This is the law which God
gave to Moses for the children of Israel
1t indicates that the attempt to steal land
was regarded as a great offence. The
same view prevailed among the Romans,
who had god called Terminus to preside
over boundaries, and to inhict punishment
upon those who were guilty of offences
against them. The removal of boundaries
was thus species of sacrilege
But how is it in Connecticut Why if the
boundary between lands is "A fence of any
kind and IA man can move the fence so as to
make it inclose some of his neighbours land
with his own, or if he shall make a new
fence which shall inclose some of his neigh
boris land, and keep 1t there for 10 years
he shall not be cursed nor punished as VIC
lating a sacred right, but he shall be re
warded by the whole value of the land he
has wrongfully nclosed That is, if he
shall squeeze his conscience down to the
stealing point, and hold it there for 10
years, he shall be rewarded rather than
punished
\ half hours deliberation makes killing
"A murder. But 10 years of malice afore-
thought in stealing land, gives to the steal
ing the moral sanction of the law. | do not
hesitate to say that the law of adverse pos
session in its present form is disgrace to
the state. There are boundaries and fences
in remote woodlands which are seldom Wis
tied and where the proprietor could not
tell whether fence had been moved or
not without the assistance of surveyor
covetous proprietor has only to move "A
slight fence 50 as to make it include an acre
e L.
known to said neighhor, and to keep it
there for 10 years, and he has gained the
land This is to reward and encourage the
meanest kind of dishonesty. 1t is not Il
theft to which man has been moved by
sudden temptation; it is villainy delber-
ate and long persisted in; the sin of covet-
business in ITS ripest form, And yet such
Is the moral force of the legal sanction that
men are scarcely ashamed of the offence
| have known men to say without blush
to an adjoining proprietor, Il have had
this land inclused for ~ wears and own it
10y possession.
The law of adverse possession is an in
h"ritance from the English common law
modified, but not improved, by special en
actment Doubtless it Is less Objectionable
IN England than here, where possession
cannot so easily take place without the
knowledge of the other party interested 1t
Is sad to proceed on the principle that
~ hen person has voluntarily aud con
~"iuuslY coded his right he cannot right
fully assume it again after ID years. This
is at least the only plausible excuse that
can hr made Cor the law. But in nine cases
out OF ten the proprietor who luScs his title
by the operation of this law does not vol
UNFAIRLY and consciously rellnquish his
right. In "A vast majority of instances the
acquiring of land under this law is a DELHI
crate steal in which the trespasspr depends
ON the ignorance or negligence of the right
full proprietor for success The negligence
receives its natural penalty in losing the
use of the inclosed lands and the increas-
ed difficulty of reGstahlishing boundaries.
To say that because man has neglected
to look sharp after the boundaries Of his
land he ought therefore to lose it, is not
TO make the punishment fit the crime. -
but to vastly exceed H. And in the in
creased accuracy of modern surveys and
the increased care in making records it is
not necessarily difficult to reestablsh a
boundary even a half century old So
there is no excuse for the law in the ne
cessities of the case, and any amount of
trouble is better than to make the law
sanction crime. We cannot afford pen
atty for negligence which is also a reward
for villany. Indeed, the worst effect of
the law of adverse possession is that it of
fers premium for deliberate dishonesty.
The farmers and landhollers of the state
are doubtless As honest as other men but
there are some among them who are not
proof against the temptation offered by
the law of adverse possession, especially
when the moral sanction of the law is
taken into the account. Nothing. indeed,
can be worse than law which encourages
dishonesty. We ought to be working back
toward the moral standard of the divine
law as expressed in the passage above
quoted, instead of setting it aside by stat,
utory enactment.
move therefore for such a modification
of the law of adverse possession as will an
nul its effect, if the original owner shall
say that he did not know of the adverse
occupancy, did not know that the fence
was beyond the bounds, unless it shall be
proved that he did know it, aud had known
it for 10 years. This would bring the law
back to what lawyers say was its original
intention. -.JuStiHidn in the conn. Farmer