162 BOARD OF AGRICULTURE. [Pub. Doc. 



share of the litigation of the country. No class in the com- 

 munity is more jealous or tenacious of its rights than agri- 

 culturists ; none enjoys more keenly the excitement and 

 the uncertainties of a law suit. But litigation over small 

 matters, which was prevalent in New England farming 

 communities one hundred years ago, is less common to-day 

 than it was then. The old reports furnish some racy read- 

 ing, which chronicles the disputes and quarrels frequently 

 arising between neiG-hborino; tillers of the soil. 



Jeremiah Mason, that distinguished lawyer of New Hamp- 

 shire, who in his later life was one of the chief ornaments 

 of the Boston bar, and who died in 1830 at an advanced 

 age, won great reputation early in his practice by his suc- 

 cessful conduct of the "pig cases" and his attacks upon 

 the "pig acts," so called, of the New Hampshire Legis- 

 lature. The contest lasted several years, and became the 

 chief subject of gossip in the State, A farmer client of 

 Mr. Mason had a dispute with a neighbor over the title to 

 two pigs, which were declared to be of the value of one 

 dollar. He was anxious to have a complaint for larceny 

 sworn out against his fellow townsman. Mr. Mason be- 

 lieved this was too extreme a measure, and declined to 

 cause the arrest. He did advise an action of trover, as it is 

 called, to determine the title to, and value of, the disputed 

 property. A writ was duly placed in the hands of a con- 

 stable for service. That officer, not finding the defendant 

 at home, pushed the writ under the defendant's door, and 

 made return that he had served it at the defendant's last 

 and usual place of abode. The plaintiff, who lived near by, 

 noticed the mode of service, and surreptitiously withdrew 

 the summons and put it in his own pocket before the 

 defendant's return, so that the latter had no notice of the 

 suit at all until it had gone to judgment before a justice 

 of the peace, and execution had issued. The defendant, 

 naturally enough, made a great fuss about this little irregu- 

 larity, and told Mr. Mason how that gentleman's client had 

 been seen purloining the process of the court. Mr. Mason 

 consulted with his client, and, finding the charge to be true, 

 offered to have the judgment and execution cancelled, and 

 to submit to a trial on the question of the ownership of the 



