The daily Alaskan., 1914-02-03
PHANTOMS.
Many Statutes That Exist Only
 In the Imagination.
EXAMPLES OF "NO SUCH LAW''

Fixed Ideas, Vet Have No Founda-
 tion In Legislative Enaotments.
 Many people have the idea that if one owes a bill and goes to his debtor and tells him that he is willing to pay and then offers some trtfing sum on account, say S1 or even less per week or month, the creditor Is obliged to take 1t, utterly regardless of the fact that if creditors were obliged to re- ceive payment in that way 1t would put most of them out of business in very short period.
 There is no such law.
 Tn the minds of very many people, especially In the country districts, there is another firmly fixed idea that if one person strikes another first the person assaulted may then Gl but pound the other to death.
 There is no such law.
 A person assaulted has the right to defend himself. but be may not use any more force than necessary to do that. To use more than necessary force completely turns the tables, and the assaulted becomes the aggressor and liable for his excess of zeal in damages commensurate with the dam- age done. A person has the right to order an undesirable person from bis premises and to use sufficient force to eject him If he does not go when so ordered, but he has no right to acceler- ate his movements with one or more well placed kicks.
 Many people who owe bills labor uu- der a strong impression that 1t is the duty of their creditors to come to them for their money.
 There is no such law.
 There is a proverb which says, "The borrower is servant to the lender" The bank will not come to you if you owe a note which 1t holds for collec- tion. Out of courtesy it will send you notice that your note is due Gt is not compelled to do that), but you must go to the bank to make payment
 In the country frequently and in the city sometimes one is told that, If a person dies leaving children and grandchildren, the children of a de- ceased child, the grandchildren, are not entitled to the share of the estate which their parent would have taken, as the father or mother having died there Is no way whereby the inherit ance can pass over from the deceased to the grandchildren-in other words, the line is broken.
 There is no such law.
 The statutes expressly provide that the children of deceased heirs take the share that would have gone to their parent.
 A person owns a fruit tree and its branches overhang the land of his nelghbOr Many think because of that the neighbor is entitled to the fruit on the oYerhanging branches.
 There is no such law.
 If the tree sat upon the line be- tween the estates the neighbor would be entitled to one-half of the fruit, but being wholly on one side the owner is entitled to all the fruit and may go upon his neighbours land and gather it without being guilty of tTespass. If the neighbor does not like this ar ra2gement he may take his aX or saw and cut the limbs off at the line be- tween the estates, but he must throw them on his neighbOrs land, as the wood of the tree belongs to him. The owner of the tree may not like to have his tree treated thus, but he cannot help himself.
 Two men own adjacent lots of land. One wishes to have a fence between them; the other does not Many people think that one may build the fence and compel the other to pay for half of 1t
 There is no such law.
 In such a case one owner may call in the fence viewers and have them ascertain the line and designate which part of the fence each shall build Neither party, however, can compel the other to build any particular style of fence. The mover in the matter may want a fancy fence, but the other may build his half of any material satis- factory to himself, and so long as it is a legal fence he cannot be compelled to build any other.
 Many shOpkeepers demand that find CTS of lost money or yaluables in their stores shall deliver them over to them, as they own the articles because they were found on their premises.
 There is no such law.
 The finder of money or other 7alu- ables on the floor outside the counter in a store Is the owner of the same against the whole world except the loser. but 1t has been held that if the owner left the money or goods upon the counter or on a table in the store they were practically in the care of the storekeeper and he had the right to their custody, while be could not make such a claim to goods which were found on the foor.-Boston Globe.