The courts, it appears, have decided that a man has no legal claim to a part of the fruit of a tree growing near the division line, and drawing largely upon his soil for its growth and productions; not because the complaining party has no grievance, but because the "scales of justice" are inadequate to the exact division of the fruit. Perhaps the old blind goddess had better employ the Fairbanks, and get something better adapted to the complications of the age.

It is decided that the aggrieved party may cut off the limbs that hang over his ground, but he must do this with as little damage as possible; which means, I suppose, that he must use sharp tools, and wax the ends of the stubs.

On his right to dig down and cut off the thieving roots, which may be feeding on his dear-bought superphosphate, they do not give an opinion; but it is inferred that he has no remedy, not expressly granted by the courts.

On the same principle, a man may tether his cow on his neighbor's grass, if he drives the stake on his own land. The courts would, doubtless, give the neighbor the privilege of driving the cow back whenever it trespassed, but he must do it gently. The milk would, of course, belong to the owner of the cow.

Now, so far as this decision affects the trees already planted, it makes but little difference, as there are very few persons who would feel disposed to have any contention with their neighbors, to get what clearly appeared to; them their own; but it is because it gives | legal sanction to that which is morally wrong, and encourages that class of people who are willing to take all the laws allow, to continue a practice which ought to be discontinued.

A row of thrifty apple trees, set within four feet of the line, would, in twenty years, extend their roots at least two rods beyond the line; and while the owner of this strip of land has the unquestioned right to all it can produce, he gets not more than half a crop for his outlay for culture and fertilizers; a return which would hardly leave him any profit. It would, probably, be just as well for him to give the owner of the trees a lease for a strip two rods wide during the life of the trees as to continue to cultivate it.

In regard to the custom of claiming all the trunks of forest trees on the premises, however much they may have extended their roots across the line, the case is not parallel; because, first, there is a reciprocity, which, if not exactly equal, is generally near enough so to be satisfactory; and, second, because no damage can be claimed; as the growth of a forest improves the soil by drawing sustenance deep in the ground, and shedding its leaves and products on the surface. So that a tree, growing in a dense forest, so near the line as to draw about as much from one side as the other, has done good service to the party who cannot claim the trunk.

The nearest that fruit trees should ever be planted to the line, is half of the usual distance trees are planted in the orchard. If pear, plum or cherry, ten feet; if apple, sixteen to twenty feet; and then the roots will encroach enough in a dozen years to draw largely from land adjoining, if cultivated.

St. Joseph, Mich.