TRESPASS. 451 TREVELYAN. the plaintiff's. A wrongful intention is not ncccs- s.iry to actionable trespass to chattels. One wlio voluntarily interferes with the possession of another is bound to know whether he is acting lawfully or not. Inevitable accident, however, is a defense. Trespass to real property is an unlawful entry upon the lands of another. Every man's land is regarded by the law as surroundeil and separated from that of his neighbors by a close or bound- ary. This may be a visible, tangible object, such as a fence or a hedge: but if none such exist, there is thrown around the land, in contempla- tion of law, an invisible, ideal boundary which efi'ectually separates it from the ])roperty of all other persons. Any unwarrantable breaking through this close, and thereby entering or sending a person or personal property upon the land which it surroimds, even though no actual injury be done to the property, con- stitutes a trespass, for which an action at law will lie in favor of any one rightfully in posses- sion when such act is done. No crime is usually committed by such a wrongful entry; and this is so even when the owner or rightful possessor has put up notices upon the land, as is so frequently done, stating that 'Trespassers will be prose- cuted,' or using other words to that effect. If, however, the trespasser wantonly injure the prop- erty, as by breaking down the trees or crops, he may be criminally prosecuted for malicious mis- chief. A person may commit trespass for which he will be liable in a civil action for damages, not only by his own entry upon land, but also by wrongfully sending his personal property upon it or permitting it to go there. Thus, if he un- warrantably drive his cattle upon his neighbor's soil or negligently permit them to go upon it, he becomes liable to an action in trespass for the resulting damages. The common law also gives to the injured land-owner, in sueh cases, another remedy bj- permitting him to distrain or impound the cattle thus damiific feasant, or doing damage, imtil their owner renders him satisfaction for the injury sustained. At common law the owner of a dog or cat was not liable for its trespasses. Various reasons were assigned for this, such as the difficulty of keeping these animals under restraint, the slight- ness of the damages ordinarily inflicted by their wanderings, and the common usage of allowing them greater liberty than that accorded to cattle. But if a dog, or cat. or other such animal be known by its owner to have vicious propensities, and. because of his failure properly to restrain it. it injure the person or property of another, he will be liable in damages. There are some circumstances under which en- try upon the land of another without his consent is justifiable or excusable, and so does not con- stitute a trespass. Thus, if a public highway be so obstructed as to be impassable, a traveler may rightfully go around the obstruction upon the private land of an individual : and a person who, by virtue of a contract with another, has become the owner of personal property upon the latter's land, may enter and take it from such land; and again, when a vendor of personal property has rescinded the sale because of fraud practiced upon him, he may enter upon the land of the vendee, if not forbidden by the latter, and retake the property sold, and the same rule holds whenever an owner of land has wrongfully ac- quired possession of the personalty ot another and placed it upon his own land. It is general- ly the rule, however, with these few exceptions, that a person who goes or sends upon the land of another, and takes his own chattels without per- mission of such land-owner, however such chat- tels may have come to be there, is guilty of a trespass. If a trespass be attempted upon real property, or upon personal property which is in the actual possession of its owner, the person rightfully in possession of the same may proper- ly use all the force that is necessary to prevent the commission of the wrong. But if he employ more force than is actually needed to repel the violence of the intruder, he makes himself liable to an action for assault and battery, and his act may constitute a ciime. Growing out of this right to make use of so much violence as is requisite to prevent intrusion is the well-known common-law maxim that "A man's house is his castle."' Yet there are a few cases in which even the privacy of a person's dwelling-house may be invaded without his permission. An officer of the law, when executing criminal process — as in seek- ing to apprehend a criminal or one charged with a crime — may use the needed force to enter a building in w-hich such person is secreted. And even in the execution of civil process an officer may break open inner doors after he has peace- ably obtained entrance into the house; but no civil process can authorize him to employ force or violence to obtain ingress through the outer door of a dwelling. There are. moreover, many circumstances under which persons are invited, by implication, to go upon the property of others and so do not become trespassers, if, not being expressly forbidden to do so, they so enter. Thus, , it is ordinarily no act of trespass for a person to enter the house of his neighbor upon matters of business or to make a social call ; so keepers of stores, theatres, hotels, .etc., hold out to the public a general invitation to enter upon their properties for the purpose of dealing with them. But even in such cases those who enter or remain against the express prohibition of the owner or proprietor become trespassers in so doing. If one go upon the property of another rightfully, but abuse or make ill use of the privilege or au- thority under which he entered, as if he go into a tavern or theatre and refuse to leave within a reasonable time or when ordered to do so, he thereby becomes a trespasser 06 initio, or from the time when he entered. Consult: Pollock and JIaitland, History of English Lair (2d ed.. Boston. ISOll) : Ponieroy, Remedies and R-emedial Rights (Boston, 1883) ; Pollock, The Law of Torts (London and New York, 1901). TRESSURE. In heraldry (q.v.), a sub- ordinary. TREVELYAN, tre-vel'vnn. Sir Charles Ed- ward (1807-86). An Anglo-Indian official. He was born at Taunton, Somersetshire: received his education at the Charterhouse and Haileylmry College; entered the East India Company's civil service, and in 1S27 went to Delhi as assistant to Sir Charles Tbeophilus ^letcalfe. chief com- missioner. Through his efforts in the cause of native education the CJovernment encouraged and supported the promotion of European literature
