It is a great comfort to find once in a while a judge deciding by the rules of common sense, instead of higgling over the meaning of words. Before us is a report of a trial in England. A lady willed to another her "house and garden." A low evergreen hedge divided the garden, on one side of which were solely fruit trees; and vegetables, low fruits and flowers on the other side. It was contended that the fruit part was not a garden, but an orchard. The judge decided that if this were to be admitted, the lady would have died intestate so far as the orchard was concerned, but the fact that she made a will showed she had no intention of dying intestate. It was not to be supposed that she had forgotten that she owned an "orchard" when she made the will, and the presumption was that she intended the orchard to go as the garden. He declined to discuss the difference between the words orchard and garden, and with the testator's intention clear in his mind, ruled in favor of the defendant, the cottage holder.

Justice Parsons' head is level, as Americans might say.