LAW FOR THE FARMER. 333 



gagee, out of possession, would be so far the owner as to be held 

 to this responsibility. If fcliere is any difficulty there, I will say it 

 is one of the difliculties incident to owning property and being 

 contiguoiis to those who are insolvent. The law presumes every- 

 body to be solvent and honest, but in some instances it has been 

 found that that presumption in relation to honesty, was iiot conclu- 

 , sive, and sometimes men are not solvent. I do not know that the 

 question has been adjudicated. I am very glad it has boon asked, 

 for now you will begin to know how to pity a lawyer, lie will 

 get the best education he can in his early days, burrow in a law 

 office for years, and spend the best part of his life in trying to pre- 

 pare himself to attend to cases as they come, and yet there are 

 cases constantly arising about which there are doubts until the 

 court adjudicates upon them, and it is doubtful how the court will 

 adjudicate ; and when they do, you will sometimes find the judges 

 five one way and three the other. I would like to hear from Mr. 

 Robinson. 



Mr. R0BIN.SON. It strikes me that you cannot recover from the 

 mortgagee. 



Col. SwKTT. I asked the question because I have a case of tliat 

 kind. (Laughter.) 



Mr. Lkbroke. I always throw a drag-net, and hold everybody 

 I pos.sibly can. I should give notice to the mortgagee, and if the 

 mortgagor was absolutely insolvent I should hold the mortgagee 

 if I could ; not having much faith in the claim if mortgagor was 

 in the possession and mortgagee out. 



Mr. Doe. Would the man who built the fence have the right to 

 enter and remove it at any time, without rendering himself liable 

 for trespass ? 



Mr. Lebroke. I do not think he would. Whenever a line fence 

 is built it becomes part of the realty, on the one hand and the 

 other, and neither party can remove it until he gives the other 

 party proper notice, and the fence viewers appraise it. Then, if 

 the other party does not pay him for it, he can remove it. But in 

 order to do that he must go still further, and abandon his own 

 land. 



Question. I would like to ask, if in building that fence the party 

 should happen to build it one foot upon his own land, would it pre- 

 vent him from recovering damages from the other party ? 



Mr. Lehroke. If that fact should be properly pleaded, and 

 properly shown, I should say it would be a defence, because it 



