34 



JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY. 



imprisonment and not death or maiming ; consequently the only occasion 

 on which one is justified in shooting a burglar is when it is necessary in 

 self-defence. Probably, however, where a burglar has any offensive 

 weapon handy it would not be difficult to convince a jury on very slight 

 evidence that the shooting had been done in self-defence, and possibly 

 this is how the misunderstanding of the law on this point has arisen. 

 Neither is one justified in setting one's dog on to a trespasser, and here 

 one may mention another legal fallacy which is somewhat widespread. 

 It is not true that "every dog is entitled to his first bite." If you are 

 injured by a dog all you have to prove is that the owner knew, or ought 

 to have known, that his dog was of savage propensity. Of course where 

 a dog has bitten anyone before that is the best evidence of savageness, but 

 it is quite sufficient to show that the dog had a savage reputation — if, for 

 instance, he has been known to fly at people before, even though he may 

 not have succeeded in biting anyone. 



Of course there are other remedies for trespass in addition to the one 

 of criminal prosecution. For instance, if a person walks on to your land 

 without having any right to do so you can, after going through one 

 important formality, proceed to eject him ; but one has to bear in mind 

 that an owner is not justified in forthwith assaulting a trespasser for the 

 purpose of ejecting him from his land. The owner must first go through 

 the formality of requesting the trespasser to leave, and then, if he will not do 

 so, the owner can proceed to eject him ; but this remedy has to be used with 

 great caution, inasmuch as the owner is only allowed to use just as much 

 force as is necessary to eject the trespasser, and if the least force is used 

 over and above what is necessary, then the owner is guilty of an assault, 

 and can be prosecuted or sued for damages accordingly. 



An owner can also bring an action in the Civil Courts against a 

 trespasser and can claim damages on account of the trespass, and in this 

 case (which, it will be observed, is quite distinct from a criminal prosecu- 

 tion) the owner need not show that he has suffered any damage by reason 

 of the trespass. In an ordinary case of trespass, however, only nominal 

 damages would be given by the Court to the owner, but the trespasser 

 might be ordered to pay the owner's costs, which in a High Court case 

 might be heavy. Recently the Judges have shown a marked inclination 

 to discourage actions for merely technical trespassing. Where there are 

 any special circumstances which aggravate the offence, or where the 

 offender has trespassed after receiving notice not to trespass, then the 

 Court has power to award heavy or vindictive damages irrespective of 

 whether the owner has really suffered actual damage or not. 



However, the main difficulty which lies in the way of owners who 

 wish to protect themselves from trespass is that the persons trespassing 

 frequently do not cause damage of such a nature as would justify a criminal 

 prosecution under the circumstances above set forth, while, on the other 

 hand, if the owner brings an action in the Civil Courts claiming damages 

 for the trespass it frequently happens that the offender is a person of no 

 means, so that the owner is unable to get any damages out of him, or even 

 recover legal expenses to which he had been put. 



One learned writer has suggested that the best means of keeping 

 impecunious persons off one's lands is always to have two or three fierce 



