By Irving Browne.
CURRENT TOPICS. A MARGINAL TRESPASS. (Cole v. Drew, 44 Vt. 49; 8 Am. Rep. 362.) The highway sides on plaintiff's land Were overgrown with weeds and grass, Which high as children's waists didst stand, And when they sought to school to pass, Wet through their pants and petticoats, And raised up white spots in their throats. So Mrs. Drew, defendant's wife. Directed by the road -surveyor, Cut down the grass to save their life, And, like a careful house-purveyor, Bestowed it on her husband's horse, Without an atom of remorse. The harvest weighed but twenty pounds, But plaintiff, bent to have his own, For trespass on his lawful bounds, Sued for a crop he had not sown, And, as the circumstances showed, One which he never would have mowed. Now when this sharp penurious Yankee Was told the verdict of the jury, He did not stop to give them thank-ye, But rushed from court in sudden fury, For they a wholesome lesson meant, And gave him damages — one cent! But like the average of folk, Not letting well enough alone, Forgetful of the case in Coke — By name " Six Carpenters " 'tis known — Defendant angry " 'pealed it up," And thus he filled with wrath his cup. "A trespass ab initia, The taking and the feeding show;
• De ininiinis non curai 1ел ' We'll not apply, our brains to vex;" So said the court, upon appeal, And dampened down defendant's zeal. So plaintiff got his costly cent, Defendant paid a bill of costs; Both parties gave their passions vent, And left the weeds to heat and frosts; But little recked each wise attorney, He did not have to tramp that journey.
This is the smallest case of any That lawyers con by midnight lamp; It beats that of the English penny,1 And that of the deficient stamp,2 And shows how great a fool he is Who litigates de minimis. CONNIVANCE. — A very interesting point is decided in Dennis v. Dennis, 68 Conn. 186; 34 L. R. A. 449: "A woman who authorizes her attorney to employ detectives to watch her husband, whom she suspects of infidelity, for the purpose of obtaining evidence which will entitle her to a divorce, and who goes with them at a time appointed to surprise him in a compromising position with a lewd woman em ployed by them for that purpose, may be found to have known that the woman's movements were gov erned by them, so as to show connivance on her part which will bar her right to divorce." The Court said : "Connivance is the corrupt consenting of a married party to that conduct of the other of which afterwards com plaint is made. It bars the right of divorce because no injury is received : for what a person has consented to, he cannot set up as an injury. Connivance is a thing of the intent resting in the mind. It is the consenting. But the connivance may be the passive permitting of the adultery or other misconduct, as well as the active procuring of its commission. If the mind consents, that is connivance. Ross v. Ross, L. R. l Prob, it Div. 734; Pierce -<. Pierce, 3 Pick. 299; 15 Am. Dec. 210. The connivance of the plaintiff is established as a fact upon evidence to the ad mission of which no objection was made, and we suppose this to be a conclusion which this court cannot revise." Then follows a statement of the facts, and the court continue : — "Her conduct then and ever since might well be deemed to cast a reflex light on her knowledge of the purposes for which the detectives were employed, and her consent to the artifices which they practiced. These are the facts and circumstances from which the trial court held that the plaintiff was barred of all right to have a divorce for the acts of adultery she had proved. In the light of the au thorities we have cited, we think the decision of the court on this part of the case should not be disturbed. Morrison v. Morrison, 136 Mass. 310; Myers v. Myers, 41 Barb. «Teall». Felton, i NY., 137; 12 Howard (U. S.), 1*4. ' London & B. Ry. Co. v., Watson 3 C. P. Div. 429; 4 ibid, 118. 363
