No. 4.] HIGHWAYS. ' 231 



sage for trained bears or the driving of other wild beasts, 

 whether caged or not ; and so the statute forbids their 

 passage except in covered wagons or cages. 



In the case of Gregory v. Adams, in 14 Gray, we have 

 an account of an elephant belonging to a menagerie, which 

 broke down a bridge when he walked over it. The ques- 

 tion Avas raised in that case whether he was a proper traveller 

 on the highway ; and the supreme court sustained the posi- 

 tion of the lower court, which held it was a question for the 

 jmy to determine whether the elephant was a proper traveller 

 or not. 



Individuals may so conduct themselves as to be trespassers 

 on the highway. Boisterous and riotous behaviour may go 

 so far that participants in it may lose their rights as legiti- 

 mate travellers upon the highway, so as to be liable to 

 persons offended for a disturbance of the peace, or so as to 

 disqualify .themselves from recovering damages while acting 

 in such unlawful manner. 



An interesting case arose a good many years ago in the 

 State of New York, which illustrates the extent to which 

 courts will go in affording protection to persons annoyed by 

 trespassers. The opinion says : " The defendant also com- 

 mitted a trespass while standing on the sidewalk by the 

 plaintiff's lot where he lived, and using towards him abusive 

 language. "While so engaged he was not using the high- 

 way for the purpose for which it was designed, but was a 

 trespasser. He stood there but for about five minutes. It 

 was not shown that he stopped on the sidewalk for a justi- 

 fiable cause ; on the contrary, it was rendered probable that 

 it was for a base and wicked purpose. It was therefore a 

 trespass. Suppose a strolling musician stops in front of a 

 gentleman's house and plays a tune or sings an obscene song 

 under his window, — can there be a doubt that he is liable 

 in trespass? The tendency of the act is to disturb the 

 peace, to draw together a crowd, and to obstruct the street. 

 It would be no justification that the act was done in a public 

 street. The public have no need of the highway but to 

 pass and repass. If it is used for any other purpose not 

 justified by law, the owners of the adjoining land are re- 



