By Henry Austin, of the Boston Bar. Published by Charles C. Soule, Boston. 1886.

One of the last things for any sane person to do is to go to law. But people need not buy this book in order to learn how to get the law on a neighbor, but they will do themselves good service to know what the law is so as to avoid a trespass on their neighbors' rights, or how to defend themselves if they are forced into law by the stupidity of others. It is an extremely interesting book, and will interest any one. It gives an abstract of hundreds of cases in every part of the Union, that have any bearing on the work of the cultivators of the soil.

It has also the useful lesson of showing up the uncertainties of the law. The following is what is said of the right to pick fruit from overhanging trees, of fruit falling into a neighbor's land, and of the right to cut off overhanging branches :

" Where the farmer has a three growing near a boundary line, even if the roots extend and grow into the land of his neighbor and derive nourishment therefrom, so long as the trunk remains on the farmer's land the tree is his property, and he is entitled to all the fruit, notwithstanding some of its branches may overhang his neighbor's land. If the farmer is prevented from reaching over and picking the fruit by the use of force by his neighbor, the farmer may have an action for assault and battery.

"In a New York case, a lady (whose father owned some fruit trees) stood upon the division fence, and undertook to pick cherries from a limb of a tree which overhung the neighbor's land. The neighbor forbade her, and on persisting, attempted to prevent her by force, and did her personal injury, for which he was obliged to pay her, through the courts, one thousand dollars.

" If the farmer's fruit fall into his neighbor's land, a question may arise as to his right to go upon it to recover his fruit. It seems that the law on this point is not settled, but the farmer would probably have an implied license in law to enter, if possible, without any damage to his neighbor.

"The adjacent owner may cut off the branches or roots up to the line of his land; but, if he uses them, he will be obliged to pay the owner of the tree what they were worth.

" Where a tree stands upon the boundary line between adjoining owners, so that its body extends into the land of each, they own the tree and fruit in common, and neither is at liberty to cut the tree without the consent of the other, nor to cut away the part which extends into his land, if he thereby injures the common property".

It is evident that the " law " in these cases is not consistent. The neighbor would have the right to cut off the roots of his neighbor's trees that fed on his ground, but he has no right to gather the fruit which were fed from the roots growing on his own ground. He may not pull the fruit from the tree, but he may cut away the branches which bear the fruit. He may not pick up the fallen fruit from overhanging branches, but he may authorize another to pick up " anything " lying on his property and he may take from this person the fallen fruit. He may not cut down a tree standing exactly on the line, because that would kill the whole tree, but he can slice off his half just up to the pith or median line of the tree and kill it in that way if he wants to. When the lady was assaulted for getting the fruit from overhanging branches, it is not clear whether the one thousand dollars were paid as damages for injury resulting from assault, or for preventing the owner from getting her own. Altogether we may read and read and yet get no understanding as to why this or that is the law, or anything about the common sense of the thing; but still it will be of interest to know that this judge has decided this in this way, or that in that, even though they may seem contradictory, for it is on "decisions" that lawyers often have to rest their cases.

It is perhaps well that they are contradictory, for any side can then get one to suit.