Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 13.pdf/326

 Gardening.

293

GARDENING. BY R. VASHON ROGERS. GOD ALMIGHTY first planted a garden; and, indeed, gardening is ihe purest of human pleasures." Many have been the lawyers who have loved to delve, to ''wind the woodbine round the arbor, or direct the clasping ivy where to climb," or to redress "the spring of roses intermixed with myrtle." ''The wisest, brightest, meanest of mankind," Lord High Chancellor Bacon, "the most distinguished man who ever held the Great Seal of England,'' says that a garden "ought not well to be under thirty acres of ground and to be divided into three parts; a green in the entrance; a heath or (iesert in the going forth; and the main garden in the midst, besides alleys on both sides." In it he would have grass, and foun tains, hedges and thickets of sweetbrier and honeysuckle, the ground set with violets, strawberries and primroses, "for they are sweet," little heaps decked with brilliant flowers and blooming bushes; flowers blos soming fair to the eye and plants that do best perfume the air. We cannot quote but simply advise you to read the whole judgment of this great immortal on the subject. Bacon's immediate predecessor on the woolsack once, when opening Parliament, called the royal prerogative of establishing monopolies "the chiefest flower in Elizabeth's garden." He cultivated rhetoric and flowers of speech, not the soil. What can be done to the canine, feline, equine, bovine and gallinacean animals of your neighbors that trespass upon your garden, disporting themselves on the flower heels to the destruction thereof and of all the angelic qualities in your character? This is the first great question: and the second is like unto it, what can you do to your neighbof if you don't forgive him these trespasses? You can "shoo" these animals, both quad

rupedal and bipedal, out; but you had better not shoot them. In shooing cows or horses you may resort to any of the ordinary means which a prudent man would naturally use: you may set a dog on them, but beware of using a dog that from its size and habits a man of care and prudence would not em ploy. If, however, you have no reason to believe that the dog is needlessly fierce, and you use your best endeavors to restrain his ardor, you will not be responsible to the owner of the trespassers for any excess of zeal on the part of your canine assistant. (Tobin v. Deal, 60 Wis. 87: 50 Am. Rep. 345-) As to what a prudent man would do you will probably never know, until a jury is called upon by the judge to decide whether the means used by you for driving out the marauding cattle were reasonable and nec essary for the protection of your property. (Mclntyre 7'. Plaisted, 57 N. H. боб.) The knowledge may come too late to be of any practical utility to you. En passant we would query whether the intelligence of the average juryman has increased since the arrival of the "Mayflower." Necessary force may be used in expelling the trespassers, but both the common law and humanity forbid you inflicting any un necessary injury upon them: you must not shoot or wound them. The owner of the animals may be liable to you for the damage committed, yet the lex talionis of the Mosaic dispensation does not apply—you cannot in flict injury for injury, nor wreak vengeance on the animals that only obey the instincts of nature in seeking food where it is most inviting. (Snap r. People, 19 Ill. 80: 68 Am. Dec. 582.) You may, however, get a little of the sweets of vengeance by turning them loose on the highway, and so let them wander away, or go to perdition: unless, indeed,