The third exception filed by the defendant, viz: that the two justices ordered the complainants to put up the fence, without requiring proof that the defendant had not complied with the order of the viewers, is destitute of foundation. The record of the justices show that this exception is founded in mistake.
The fourth exception is, that the viewers had no authority to order the defendant to put up and repair his fence on the line.
It is certain they could not order him to put it up or repair it off the line; and having directed him to repair it on the line, cannot invalidate the order. Viewing the words, on the line, in the most exceptionable light, they can be deemed nothing but surplusage. The substantial drift of the order is, that the defendant shall repair the fence.
With respect to the affidavit of the defendant of the 6th of January, 1816, that he has enclosed completely the burial ground on his own ground, leaving an interval of 10 feet between the line of the burial ground and the fence he has put up, the Court would remark, that generally speaking, a man has a right to put up a fence upon his own land, and as many as he pleases. A man must however so exercise his right, as not to injure those of another. Having once joined fences with his neighbours he cannot, when ordered to repair his share of it, evade the law, by removing it, and placing it altogether upon his own ground. Where the law has once laid its hands upon a man, he must not be allowed to escape from its operation. Nothing can meet the approbation of a Court, that would look like an evasion of the law. A man cannot in one and the same breath, say he is bound and not bound. Whether a person might remove his share of a division fence and place it upon his own ground, prior to an inspection by the fence viewers, is a point not now before the Court. But we are very clearly of opinion, removing a fence after it had been repaired in obedience to the order of two Justices, cannot exempt him from the operation of the law.
There being no error in point of law in the proceedings removed, the judgment of the Court is, they must be confirmed.
[Poulson's Am. daily Adv.
[MISCELLANY.]
Modes of salutation.—From the form of salutations among different nations we may learn something of their character, at least of their manners. In the southern provinces of China the common people ask "Ya Tan," that is, How have you eaten your rice; for in that is their greatest felicity. If two Dutchmen meet in the morning they wish each other good appetite. "Smaakelyk leten." In Cairo the inhabitants ask how do you sweat? for the not sweating is the symptom of an approaching fever. The Italian and Spaniard ask How does it stand? "Come sta." The Frenchman, How do you carry yourself? "Comment vous portez vous?" The German, How do you find yourself? "Wie befinden sie sich." The English, "How do you do?" The Dutchman says, How fare you. "Hau vaart uwe." There is one nation (we forget which) which ask "How do you live," and these are certainly the most wise of all.
To make starch.—To make starch from wheat, the grain is steeped in cold water until it becomes soft and yields a milky juice by pressure; it is then put into sacks of linen, and pressed in a vat filled with cold water; as long as any milky juice exudes, the pressure is continued; the fluid gradually becomes clear, and a white powder subsides, which is starch.