117 



out the consent of the owner or owners thereof, * * * or wilfully 

 deface, injure, break or destroy, garden or close as aforesaid," he or 

 they are liable to a fine of not less than five, nor more than fifty dol- 

 lars, or, to suffer imprisonment in the county jail of not less than ten 

 or more than sixty days, and this does "not prevent the injured party 

 from pursuing any civil remedy authorized by law." 



I am of the opinion that the farmers of the State, who are the great- 

 est sufferers from trespassers, will not think the punishments indi- 

 cated above to be too severe, and that they would favor the application 

 of the law to the entire Commonwealth instead of to the counties 

 named. 



From all of the foregoing statements it would appear that the rights 

 of owners of seated and unseated lands were already sufficiently 

 guarded. As a matter of fact, however, this is not the case. An il- 

 lustration may make this clear. Suppose one purchases a tract of un- 

 seated land, and finds a squatter on it, and brings suit to test the titles, 

 and the verdict is given in his favor and against the squatter. Ap- 

 peals may be taken and after all legal processes have been exhausted 

 the verdict still remains for the purchaser. Now mark, there is here 

 no longer any doubt remaining. The squatter is informed perfectly 

 that he has no title, and that he is simply a trespasser upon the 

 ground. The owner cannot go himself and forcibly eject him without 

 making himself liable to the charge of assault. He must employ the 

 sheriff, at his, the owner's, expense to go and enforce the decision of 

 the court. He has paid his taxes for protection which the county 

 now refuses to accord him unless he pays an additional sum for it, not- 

 withstanding that the intruder remains in such a defiance of the ver- 

 dict that his conduct should be considered as contempt of court. 



Nor is this all. It may be necessary to eject the same intruder from 

 the same tract more than once. True, it can always be done, but it is 

 attended with expense each -time to the owner. It would appear that 

 the expense of enforcing the verdict of the county court should be 

 to the county itself. 



Time is often an element in the ejectment of an intruder, even after 

 it has been decided that he has no claim to the land; and while he still 

 remains there he may be doing an injury to the owner for which the 

 latter may fail to recover damages, even if on trial a verdict is given 

 in his favor, because the intruder has neither real or personal prop- 

 erty. Indeed it may be stated as a matter of fact that such a man 

 may be a pauper, living at the expense of the county, at the very time 

 he is continuing his depredations upon a citizen who has paid to the 

 uttermost farthing the taxes assessed upon him in aid of the govern- 

 ment which is not only failing to protect him, but making it possible 

 for an outlaw to prey upon him. I think you will agree with me that 

 there is a defect here in existing law, and that the remedy should be for 



