1 VOLUNTEER. ' in<D EVEBT THUEBDAY MOntrtHO BY ” ” joftb il^Bratton. i TERMS'. Dollar and Fifty Conts, ?.dvanco | Two Dollars If paid within the a Two Dollars and Fifty Cents, if not 1 mnd the Tear. Those terms will bo rig .shsriid to in ovory Instance. NOsubßcrip •?“‘otlnnod until all arrearages aro paid |'rt&>«»" ol,hoEdU ” r n, «KiiaEHMTB— Accompanied by the oasn, i oieeoding one square, will bo inserted Irnes for ono Dollar, and twenty-five conts "additional Insertion. Those of a groat. ■nisVlso—Snch as Hand-bills, Posling imnlilois", Blanks, Labels, &c., &o.,e*o llh accorarylnnd at the shortest notice -the two mams. ttnd with light and laughing air, choetc Hko opening blossom, ; goiris were twined amid her hair, I glittering on her bosom, jCarlaod coßtly bracelets deck iund»wblf<? anus and lovely neck. lani'mQc’a .sky, with stars bcdight, : jotfolled'fobo around her, itizzllng as'ihe nOon-Hdo light, i radiant zoiic that bound her; ,rldb befid Joy were in her oyo, Vortals bo\Ved ns She passed by. tor camd—o’er her mild face mn*)TO ehatlo was stealing, iure i}o.grief of earth wo trace, t that deep holy feeling •h mourns the heart shuuhl ever stray, i the'pure'fount of.Tiuth away. md bot* brow, ns snow drop loir, 10 glossy tresses Cluster, pearl nor ornament was tlicro, vo the inddk spirits* lustre— ilth and hope’ beamed from her eye, angels uowed as she passed by. ■ 'MisfeHnitfoiifl, CARRYING BUNDLES. BT M. E. W Howard! stood on the front piazza ol *s elegant city mansion. Iconlng upon a sort of‘nothing to do’ attitude, ffMiticle Philip <Jro?e up before the door, rles, has,your father gone down town 1 is it that you are not in your place lO' Mr. Harley's store yesterday, because \ the to carry a bundle. Father is go-1 me another situation. Mother says jul I' have got some of the good-old llo >unk in me.’- I, Charles. I am sorry your mother to cultivate.tho spunky which, I grieve is a strong characteristic of the Howard to tho exclusion of their honest Indus* » parents managed very differently in .•Howard, t am sure you never carried for your employer; at least, when yon .large,as I am.’ ... Jt (ell you my experience m the bundle line would,like to,hear it, Charles. Go in -.your mother to let you take a ride with rto>*oon came bounding down the steps tile limbs, that looked ns if formed for ist such useful occupation as the one he h despised, rather than standing behind terror silling over a writing table. ?n t was a nimble-limbcd boy like you and your grandpa brought, me to this l piii me in a % JJ'W (IIH ®[. I >l your'mother calls it. As T ■hind the counter, dressed,in,a fine .suit loth; showing laces and silks to, the heartily despised the hoy who wade , swept the store, ond slept tinder; the ; and would not condescend to be seen itreeL with one a little older, who ran of though I assure you no. one tn this Uy dare despise them now. My employ- Putnam, was an intimate friend ol -my and anxious to give me every ndvan* ■ had keen chosen from among a largo of applicants, and consequently t felt ibly inflated by my position. I pitied who were forced to soil their hands in 3 their way qp to fortune, and prided on the snug portion left by my mother, I vas to bo my own at tiyenty-one. One vhen I had been at my new place about lit, Mr. Putnam called me back just as ung home to tea. and said: inf. I want you to take this bundle to rjc on your way home. 1 ' iW, sir,* I was about to reply, when :red that Mrs. Hyde was the mother school-mate, of whose acquaintance I icularly proud. I laid the bundle back counter, and said, ’Can’t John do it. dchard, John is out, and besides, I I'd you to do it. and expect obedience. 1 sir. 1 said I, Coloring up with genuine ipunk, ‘you roust get another clerk in , for my .lather never pat roc hero to vnd boy.’ roe glance at tiro expression of pity ,u-sa in my employers face, and bade I evening. I had walked & few blocks, in roy high spirit, and indignant at put upon me and roy family , when .wise, I met my father. We lived a out of the city, and he had driven business, and was on his way to call no at the store before reluming home. Ihcr, I am glad to see you, 1 said I,‘l Mr. Putnam V store. lie tried to njaho I boy of me. and I would not stand bis lie even asked roo to carry ft bundle Hyde’s mother. I expected to walk it.l can ride back with you. » fast, Richard, not so tost. What do .fto do with your strong young limbs ightleas head, if'you will not obey the tda of ollrors 1 Do you propose to go lines* for yourself 1 I know Mr. Put* well to liiiuk he would seek to disliou- , father, he has no business to make ft tof me, ond I can’t stand it. He owes < apology.’ , / father Was ft mild, quiet man, and igh kind to Ids children, wo never dared >&y him.i I knew by the expression ol his that I need hope for no indulgence nor sym* y with.'my silly pride. Uichard,’ said ho. 'you roust return to your c<j, apologize to Mr. Putnam, and in future Ice up your roind la obey bis commands, or i afeunworthy to be my son.’ ’ [ stepped silently into the carriage, with oil ’ Howard dignity and spirit blown to the 4-, winds. ' Wo drove rapidly to the store, i found Mr. Putnam had not left, ond: that ). bundle- remained where I had laid it.. I ido my opology while my father stood by, that oil was right; ond after bidding him ad bight, took the packages under roy arm. llvercd It as directed, and -rcachodwy lodgr 5 Ijlnoo a wiser, and less haughty boy thon l My employer took no notice of the nflalr.ond ring the si* years that I remained with him clerk, found me willing and obedient, and lon I reached the ago of twenty-two, I had o happiness of seeing “Putnam & Howard, conspicuous letters on the new sign in front theatcrc,* . . . •I suppose he mode you partner to gel nolo ’ the money Grandma left,* said Charley. •No. my boy, that money was lost before I ached twenty, and I was left with nothing it Howard industry and enterprise tp depend m* • . If I w#s Burs of tying w Iqcky as you have BY JOHN B. BRATTON. YOL 42. been Uncle Richard, I would not mind doing any thing.’ ‘Well. Charley, that bundle was ihe comer stone of my fortune. My father laid it when he took down my pride by carrying me back to my employer. If I had been permitted to have my own way, T should have become on idle, worthless, purse proud boy, and a poor man. As it is, the carrying of that bundle was the making of, both in mind and estate. It is con* tcmptible cowardice, and silly pride, that makes a boy refuse to use his active limbs in service becoming his years and knowledge. In stead of being degraded by carrying a bundle, or being sent on a trifling errand, makes the employment respectable by doing it well, and when you are capable of more responsible busi ness, it will be given you. That free-stone pal ace was aever built by a boy 100 proud to car ry a bundle.’ ‘Why, Uncle, how do yon know V •Because, it is owned and inhabitated by ‘lit lie Bill’ the boy who used to sweep Mr. Put nam's store: and that large church was built by a legacy left by “Joe,” (he errand boy.— They became rich and honorable, while many of the proud lads who used to look upon them with disdain, arc living in poverty, or have re ceived the rewards of idle dissipation.’ ■Well, we are at home. Charley ; tell your mother if she wonts you to be an honorable or useful man. to send you back to Mr. Harley’s. Have that ‘Howard spunk’ taken down as quickly ns possible, if you would avoid the fate of too many rich men’s sons.’ Fireside Mnsings. On the hearth the tiro is glowing Cheerfully and bright, While its flames around are throning A drenmy light. Pleasantly the hours flit o’er me, As I sit alone, Dreaming of the days before me, And of the moments gone. How sad yet pleasant the associations which cluster around the fireside. How do visions of (ho past come stealing o’er us as wo watch the brightly glowing embers, or tho radiantly bril liant flame as it leaps fearlessly forward costing Us fantastic shadows o’er floor and celling and diffusing its genial, cheerful warmth around. *Tls then that memory presents to us scene af ter scene from her laden treasury. Images of (ho friends ot other days now stand in full rc -1 lief on her tablet } friends who but ono short I year ago met with us round the fireside, who | over met tho glad smile of welcome, and whoso names were ns “household words.” But where are j,they now 1 Alas! they have fallen— their placelin the social circle is vacant ? Whcn]Ufc’s teeming cup seemed filled with pleasure, in the midst of bright hopes, kind friends and joyous expectations they wore smitten by tho ruthless hand of death, and they nowqulctly sloop In tho silent grave! Tho wild winter winds, as they moan through the branches of tho naked trees, seem to mourn a plaintive dirge o’er their loue )• resting place. Vet amid these sad reflections, how happy, low chocring the thought, that wo may meet hose friends in on other And a better world— vherc* sickness nor sorrow never come, where larliog Is never known,and where tho weary ihall bo forever at rest. i*nK Obstinacy of a \Vo»ian. — 'A tailor having amassed n fortune l»y trade, cut the shop, and removes! to tho country to Uvc : J» dlgnlfioddola uro.. Ills wife was a bit ofn shrew; and apt, as all wives arc, to tlnd out her husband’s weak points. Ono of these was a shame of his former occupation, and she harped upon the janng strings, until tho poor wretch was nearly,beside himself. Her touch word “scissors,” spoiled his boD'tnois, nnd embittered his grandest en tertainment sit wns flame to tow. He stormed and wheedled ? tho obnoxious Instrument was brandished before his eyes. They wore wal king one day on tho,bank of a river bounding his grounds. . . . “Von observe,” said be, “tho delta formed by the fork of tho river. Its beauty decided mo to close the contract. “Very probable, my door—lt reminds one so much of an open pair of scissors.” One push, and she was strugllng in tho wa tCV.X will pull yon out if you promise never to say that word again,” halloed ihe still teaming husband. , , . “Srmor* /” shrieked his wife, and down she “SciHsors !” ns sho rose again. Tho third time she came to the surface, too far gone to speak i but as tho waters closed over her, she threw up her anus, crossing her fore fingers and disappeared ! Independence optiie Packer.— The mojelmnt or manufactucr may ho robbed of tho roWard of his labor by changes In the foreign or domestic market entirely beyond his control, nnd may wind up In n year, in which ho has done every thing which intelligence nnd industry could do to insure success, not only without profit but with actual dimlnuatlon of capital. The strong arm of mechanical Industry may bo enfeebled or narlyzed by the prostration of those manufactu ring or commercial interests to whose existence it so essentially depends. What has the Indus trlous farmer to fcor ? Ills capital is im esied In the solid ground 5 ho draws on a Hind which, tom lime Immemorial, bad never failed to moot nil Inst demands. Ilispolllsmnybcdimlnlshcd, indeed, hut never wholly suspended} his success depends 00 no earthly guarantee, but on the assurance of that great and benltlccnt being who has declared that while Iho earth cmiurcth, seed time and harvest shall not full. As tho season of high wlndsis approach ing, tho following humorous Instructions howto “catch a hat,” may not bo regarded as luipor- “Thoro are a few moments In a man’s exis tence when ho experiences so much ludicrous distress, or moots with so little- charitable com miseration, as when ho is In pursuit of his own hat A vast deal of coolness, and a peculiar degree of Judgement, are requisite In catching a hat. A man must not ho precipitate, or ho runs over it j ho must not rush Into Iho oppo site extreme, or ho looses it a together. The best way Is to keep gently up with the ohlect of pursuit, to bo vary and cautious, to watch your opportunity well, gel gradually beforel It, then make a rapid dlvo, seize It by the crown, and stick it firmly on your head 1 smilingploasautly Jlithetint”'«. If you thought it is a Joke ns any body else.” . . Revolution AH T AKECOOIE.-oUvnBOnC” in my power to have shot General W“ahlngl™ I salda Brltiali soldier to .n AmorlMn, «> tl«y woro disguising tlio event of the groat struggle atTonfflng peace ..Why did you not .W him (lion 7" asked tho American i “you ought to liavo done bo for the benefit of your conn y* men." «Tho death o<,Washington would have toon for thojr benefit.,” replied the Englishman “for wo depend upon him to treat our prison ers kindly i nnd by heaven I wo’d booiiot have shot an officer of our town-1" K7*For low spirits, wo recommend ft clear connclonoo,freshalr, lots of exercise, ondatasto for flute. "And It camd fo pais when tho evil spirit was upon Saul, that David took a harp and played with hlshandj so Saul was refreshed, and was woll.and evil departed from him.’? In treating dlspasos pf tho piind,,.iuußio hot 'sufficiently valued. In ralslngtho heart above despair, on oldvlolin is worth four doctors aud two apothecary shops, “OUR COUNTRY—MAY IT ALWAYS ITE RIGHT—'BUT RIGHT OR WRONG, OUR COUNTRY. 1 TUE KITTLE OF BED BINE. nv RICHARD EVERETT. Soon after open war commenced between the Colonics and England, tbo Americans turned their attention to the mouth of the Delaware river. To prevent a British fleet from capturing Philadelphia, extensive fortifications were erec ted at various eligible points along the river shores. On alow reedy island, whore the bench was only a few feet above tide, stood Fort Mll tlln, a strong fortress built of earth, stones and huge logs. On the Jersey shore, just opposite, was Fort Mercer, a similarly constructed fortification, armed with heavy cannon. Further down the rlvor wore other works, while under the lee of small island, floating batteries commanded the river in every direction. Nor was this all; for In the mnfn channel tho American sunk huge chevaux de/rise, or (Values of timberiflllod with stones and logs. Upon these defences, princi pally, the patriots relied for (he protection of the city of Philadelphia. Soon offer the battle of Brandywine, Sir Wil liam llowo, will) a largo fleet of frigates and store ships, appeared in the month of the Dela ware river, and opened Are upon the first lino of batteries. Being able to bring many heavy guns to bear upon tho American works, lluwo soon silenced them, and toking advantage of a strong wind, sailed in one night nearly to the sunkonobstructionncarßiling’slsland. Under cover of a heavy fire from the strips, tho British labored to break a passage through the cAcreur de /rite. By great exertions, a channel eight feet deep and. just wide enough fbr a little fri gate, was delved out, and six vessels sailed through. Meantime, tho British army, which had defeated Washington at Brandywine, rapid ly neared Philadelphia, and, In fact, received stores fVora tho six ships which broke through tho sunken obstructions. With a determination to destroy Forts Mercer and Mifflin, Uowc sent Donop, with twelve hundred picked men, to make an attack by land, while the fleet assault ed a large flotilla of American batteries, gallies, gunboats, and schooners, which caused llic Bri tish much annoyance. The fleet was also to bombard f ort Mifliin. Fort Mercer, commonly called “ Red Bank,” was garrisoned by a regiment of Rhode Island troops under Col. Greene, and Fort Mifliin by two regiments of Marylanders und.T Colonel Smith. Col. Douop, with his brigade, left the British camp on the morning of October 21, and the first | ulght rested at Uaddonslleld, Now Jersey, for i several hours. Getting under anus about mfi-1 night they raarchtd briskly ncros“thc country, 1 and at 4 o’clock on the morning of the 22d, came I within cannon shot of tho Fort. r l hey were discovered by the sentry about daylight, slowly I : forming in the edge of a bolt of*foreflti Tho I garrison was instantly under arms, and prepa- j ! rations made to light ontll tho last. Although i Col. Greonu had only four hundred njon, ho do dared that Fort Mercer should never be surren. dered. With only fourteen pieces of cannon, 1 I tho bravo officer, heartily supported by his gal- 1 lant men, hastily made ready for battle. Soon a stir was observed In the British ranks, and an officer, riding up to tho onfrurichmonts, protected by a white flag, mivdo a proclamation : “Tho Klngof'England orders bis rebellions sub- Jects to lay down tholrarms, and they arc warned that If they stand battle no quarter’s will bo giv en!” To this Insulting message. Col. Greene replied.; “JiVo oslc'no quarters, neither will we give'any!” Tho officer retired, and very soon n party of artillerists co.nmjcqced.thoorocflohbf battery within oifsy cannon shot pi ' fhd fott. Tho works of Fort Morcor consisted offlMrong citadel, loopholodand supplied with strong cm braanres for cannon. Tho citadol was sutroun dod' by ramparts, flanked with batteries; there I was also a ditch and abatis. Besides these de fences, a strong masked battery occupied an i angle of tbo ramparts, its guns completely rale- Ing tho.abatis and approaches. The battery being finished, n rapid fire was commenced on tho American works. The pa triots replied for a time, but gradually slacken ed, and tho men withdrew in small parties to the citadol, leaving a company to manage a masked battery. Colonel Donop, believing the enemy s guns dismounted and the men dismayed, order ed an assault from tho whole force, In two col umns of six hundred men dach. Tho column ] which first advanced cleared the outworks with 1 loud shouts of derision, under the Impression I that tho Americans had abandoned tho whole I fortress; but their dreadful mistake was soon evident. As the Hessian soldiers climbed upon tho rampart In groat numbers, a vivid fire from cannon and musketry opened upon them fVora the citadel. It Is said that nearly one hundred men fell at the first volley. A storm of grape and chain shot swept tho glacis, while from overy loophole they poured a stream ol muskot | As tho cnomy staggered hack astonished and dismayed, the masked battery suddenly opened, I and dlspolut blank range cut down tha disor ganized enemy, and the glacis was covered with dead and dying. Tho column of Col. Donop assaulted thosoulhsldo of tho works just at tills instant—charging at the head ol his men. Do nop led them over tho abatis, across the ditch, and oven upon tho walls of the fort. Hero Do- Lop fell, badly wounded ; and his soldiers, un able to onduro tho terrible carnage made at ov ' cry volley from tho citadel, turned and fled,— As they wheeled, Col. Mingetodo,tho second in command, received a mortal wound. si ana panic struck, fled at onco, nor did thoj for a moment halt until several miles from the scone of defeat. Under tho ramparts of Fort Mercer they left over four hundred dead and wounded men, while tho fort only numbered eight men killed and twenty-eight wounded. As a parly of Americana, under tho orders or 1 a French engineer, were removing the wounded, I a faint volro from among the heap of slain and mangled men called out, “whoever you oro, draw mo 1101100 1” It was tho voice of Col. Do nop. lie was taken to a neighboring house and kindly enved for, but Ids wounds defied human ■kill. In throe day* ho died. A low hour* ho. foro his death, ho said: “It is finishing ft noble career early, (ho was thirty-seven) but I dlo a victim of tny ambition and the avarice of my sovereign I” „ , Tho attack on Fort Mifilln by tho fleet began at. tho moment of Donop** ossaulf. For several hours n sovoro cannonade was kept up by six British frigate#, upon tho .American fleet and fortifications. It was returned by tho Ameri cana in such a skillful and rapid manner, that very soon two of the frigates wore set on Are by hoi shot, and two othbrsbadiy crippled. Final ly tho English commander abandoned tho attack, | and retired beyond.pannon shot. A handsome monument, commononmog tno battle of Rod Rank, was oracled in 1829, near I tho site of Fort Morcor. About tho 10th of No i vombor, tho British made a grand Attack upon i Fort Mifilln, which, after a long resistance, was destroyed and evacuated by tho American for cos. 1 It* destruction cost tho English a very heavy loss of mon and material.. “ Tehiublw State ot ATVAins.—DlaappoW montlln love bnsiposs and fortune,aro tho prolific sources of self murder,'but tbo most curious case of tlio kind 1« n youngman named fa it. Tulor, at Ravenna, Ohio, who last week com mitted suicide by taking laudanum, “In oonso mionoo of a disappointment in not being able to do on a slolgb ride upon which Ids heart was ■very much sol.” Poor fellowl A Costly Pukseht A gentleman Inßoslon, Mass., recently rocolYod 25 lbs, of prnrlo chick. o,is from Bock Island, 111., upon which ho paid twelve and a half cents per pound rallyoad freight. Pretty fair prlfo, with tho chance o being poisoned by eating tho Wretched, hall Starved; miirdetsd chickens. CARLISLE, PA., THURSDAY, MARCH 20/1856. sujwtnt (tot HOLE T. BITTESnOIISE ct nl. Feb. 7, 1856. Error to Columbia Co. Improvement and Actual occupation and res denco for twenty-one ycafß atjd upwards,up on laud forming a part of a gunior survey will not give titlo by adverse possession under tlie Statute of Limitations, to a part of suoh junior survey, lying within the lines of an el der interfering survey, no proof being mayo of any actual entry or occupation wulpu the lines of such elder survoT*' Waggoner v. Hastings, 6 Barr, 81)0, overruled. Tins was cjcclmcntby RittfenJjouKo 4 Thomp son, against Bnmty Hole. . ciaimcil under two warrants in names of Mary,Weed and Aaron T/wy, dated Jnnu#jf H. 1' J3>au!y surveyed and patents Issued to W alter Stfcw art, March 24. 1794. Stewarts Estate in these with other Lraots. was sold at Shenß s sale in 1814. and became vcstedfNovcmbcr 20. 1810, in Jesse Roberts, who ih 1819. moved on the land, cleared and erected improvements, re sided thereon until his death in 1841: Ins wid ow and children continued thereon until 1850, when they sold to plaintiffs. The house stood on the line between the Weed and Levy sur veys and of the 80 acres cleared; about 30 was on one tract, and 50 on thoothjt. Ihe assess ments of taxes from 1819 to 1849. were given in evidence, which were not uniform; in 1830 183 T and 1832*. Jesse Robert^tvos assessed 100 acres :in 1835.100 acres*Uh H house, and 2900 acres wild land, m 1f46, 47, 48, ’49, “Robert’s heirs,” 2300 aprijs. The defendant produccd-a warrant and sur vey in the name of John GfracEt’Walcd May 10, 1785, and a survey of 4091 .acfca, dated 1 <Hi November same vear. This finr\cy lira across Iho plaintiffs’ surveys. It appeared that the defendant Hole, in 1849 entered on the Graeff track, and erected a log hooSC TOthin the lines of the Mary Weed survoyyfcml cleared a few perches of ground. TWO purveyors were ex amined, and it did not appear that any marks or monuments of the Weed amt'Levy survey, existed on the Graeff tract. Thcimprovemcnt.sof plaintiffs did not oxtcmUolirtcsofthcGraefl sur vey. The plaintiff* chimed unde* the staiutcof limitation, to the boundsof lha Weed and Levy surveys. • Defendant contcndcd v .that as plain tiffs had' not made any improvement or visible occupancy within'the Graeff lines, they could not recover under the statute any part of the 'interference. Tf any principle in the law of Pennsylvania can be regarded as settled by argument.and authority, it is that which afflmls that the lo gal title lo uncultivated lands dyaws lo it the possession, and that the possession is to be deemed actual for all purposes of remedy, until it is interrupted V)}’ an nclual'cnVyand adverse 1 possession taken hy another. Miller v. Shaw. 7 S. &• U. 134; Parr u. Gel*, C- Wheat. 213; Mather v. Trinity Church, 39. ,& R.. 513.• • lUgas certainly at one t%Jufttnally \vcll settled that this legal po.sscsslotfby.Uic owner cannot be ousted by any merejgeitrdcuvt po sesaion of ayvions lrcspaas, nor even a succession of ircspaowa frill produce that effect. Notpipg9hort *jorf nermanenUy £onnnU«fftVt» fiom the owner tho possession*nidi ,thc law 1 attaches to the legal title. In order to give ti tle under tho statute oflimitalions, the posses sion of the disseisor must not only be actual, but it must be iumWc, notorious, distinct, hos tile and contijiuciljbr the period of 21 years. - Hawk v. Schsuman. 0 S. & R. 21, Adams v. Robinson, 0 Barr, 271. This doctrine has been so constantly repeated by our. Courls.and 1 so generally acted upon by the people, that it has become tt rule of property which cannot be changed without a manifest disregard of the principle stare decisis, producing in its result an alarming violation of the right of property and a disastrous disturbance of the quiet of community. Tn accordance with this rule it has been solemnly decided by tho highest ju dicial authority in the Slate that the uninter rupted use of a trtot of land as a timber lot for the supply of a saw mill, or os a wood lot for iron works, even when accompanied with the payment of taxes on it. will not constitute an adverse possession. Wrighf V. tjiiior.9 Walls , 172; Sorter v. Willing. 10 Watts 141. Tint I the annual use of land as a sugar l camp for 21 , years under a junior survey, giyps no title un der tho statute of limitations. Adams r. Rob inson, 0 Barr, 271. That payment of taxes a lone, for 21 years, gives no title. Nagle y. Al bright, 4 Wharton 291: Sorber U; Willing. 10 W. 141; and that payment of taxes and claim. |ng and offering to sell the iapd do not oust the legal owher of his possession. Urket v. Coryell, 5 W. & S. 00. It has also been bold that a roving posses sion of different parts of a tract fyom time to time in the whole, continued for 21 years, but no particular spot for ilml-lhhe, will not es tablish a title by adverse possession. Polls ti. Gilbert, 3W. C. 0. Rep. 476. In a recent ease this court has even gone so fur os to de cide that thq actual occupancy of a small spot j of ground for 21 years, a part of tjio Umo for a nniiy and the rest of the tuna for n dung heap. wasTidt such n possession orgavo title under tho statute. Sbrodcr v. Brenneman, 0 liar. 228. It has likewise been decided that actual cultivation of part of a tract-frith marked lines continued for 21 years give* no title? without 1 payment of taxes, beyond tljfi actual enclosure or cultivated part. Bishop v.-Lec, 2 Barr, 217. Tho two decisions last named may have gone 100 far in opposition to tho Statute of Limita tions. For myself I confcsathat I donot per ceive tho principle* upon wlnili either of them can bo maintained. T y In Ringold v. Cheney. 4 Hall s Am. UJ. 128, if was decided by tho General Court qt Maryland that an actual potsission of a portion of the plaintiffs land, although undercover of a younger title, derived /tom the S/afi?, and continued for tho period required by the Stat ute of. Limitations was noto defence beyond the adversary possession by actual enclosure. This dcoisiomwas cited with approbation by Chief Justice Tlighmonia Burns v. Rwiß, S. &R. 439, and it was there stated that the principle was recognized hy McKean, U. and Ycalcs, J. at mi Priu<- declared that “ho had always ™' s,d ' r l ‘-' d law as very clear.” , 2 S. & It. 439. c of Ringgold’s lessee v. Cheney was agam ri cu by thU Court in Miller JS. & R-137- But in tho case fast mentioned it wns ntiraat ed by the Court that -if a man hod tie to the plaintiff's landf and had entered:on | part of it in assertion of neither, t|io | plaintiff nor any oilier person under him be »B'- on tho land, the case would be vqry (hfftrf from x possession wlthont color of ttue. McCall «. Neely, 3 Walts 70, it was held that a written conveyance was nut necessary tog color of title: and It was thought b; yOl of Justice Gibsoh that an entry is hy co,or °[‘‘''‘ whcivit is made under a /we, ana no protended claim lo; a title existing in nnqt ic . Id. 7?., In accordance with these inln.nfttions It seems to liavc been settled, that "’hei c there lias been an actual possession taken by an - trader of any part of the land of another, unac a bona fide claim, accompanied with » surrey, 1 or other designation of boundaries, and a con* tinued use of tho land within the boundaries so claimed,as farmers generally use their woodland, for the period of 21 years, the intruder gains title not only to what he haft really cleared and cultivated, but to all included within his lines. 801 l h. Hartley, 4 W. & S. 32. McCall v. Car ver, 4.W.& S. 151. It the claim and use be according to the lines of surrounding surreys, or according to tho lines of the surreys made for the true owner, it is as valid after 21 years 1 posscftsign under it as if the boundaries had been first marked by the intruder. Crcsswcll 5 r. Altcmus, 7 Walls SRO. But in all these cases it is essential to the validity of an ad verse possession th»t there shall be an actual ,entry upon the /and of the rightful owner, and .on .actual visible possession taken of some part 'tifil. Without such actual invasion of his -right of property he is not called upon to vin dicate it. and loss nothing by any supposed neglect to bring an action for an imaginary in jury of which he has no notice. This principle, with the exception to be no ticed hereafter, runs through all the eases. Tt was distinctly asserted by Chief Justice Gib son himself, in Wright v. Guicr, 9 W. 1 <2, de cided bo late as 1840, it was then held that actual residence and possession on adjoining laud, under a levy and conveyance by the Sheriff duly acknowledged and sanctioned by thof-Ctohft with boundaries including the valid till© will not give actual possession of the valid survey, and that such a possession on the ad joining land, although accompanied with the use ol the valid survey, as woodland cutting and coaling tho wood for extensive ironworks, cutting timber for rails, barking the trees, and selling the hark to a neighboring tannery, cut ting limber for building purposes, and making shingles on the premises will not constitute a case of actual possession. “Happily.” Says I tho learned Judge. *'we have a standard for tho 1 measurement of it.” He then quotes, as tho I standard that furnished by Mr. Justice Dun- I I can. in Brown v. OaldWcll,»when he declared that possession means “an actual occvoation, not a hare solitary trespass by an intruder,but an actual, visible, iiolorious occupaucy." He even carried the principle into its legitimate re sult by showing that there was no difference between a solitary trespass and repeated tres passes. lie tells u.s that “although residence is not a necessary ingredient of adverse posses sion, there must be enclosure and cultivation. ' “that such an occupancy is indefinitely con tinuous, while the occupancy of n trespasser, who neither cultivates nor encloses, continues no longer than he rcroairls in contact with the . soil.” ° He then meets and demolishes at a blow the very pretence of possession, which was af terwards sanctioned by himself through Some unaccountable mistake-in the unfortunate de cision in Waggoner u. Hastings, “lint. ■ con tinued the learned Chief Justice, in Vt right c. Guicr. “ft is supposed that a resident, on art joining land, is in actual possession Of all he uses for his ordinary purposes after Us kind, as a part of his domain, and in tins lies the vibe of tho 'argument. Where a particular tract of land is occupied by a resident on it under a colorable title, his possession of it i» co-cxtcnsivo tvit,h his survey: but it ts not ad-i mined that ho gains possessiyn oi his ncigtv , ttWl -hycroESing, theintV mediate boundary to trespass on it. . 0 Walts 4i“; on Ijy'atnslrnctlod; to tner vwlwil riftHid] boundaries clainifd, it was undoubtedly neces sary to show that such a possession had been taken of the land of tho rightful owner os would enable him.to 'maintain ejectment. If lie could not maintain ejectment for want of proof that the intruder had taken actual pos session of Ids land, it would shook the common sense of the community to deprive bun of his rights for not bringing his action. The doc trine of disseisin by election may be resorted to for tlio-purpose of showing that a plaintiff may, under certain circumsianccs, support c icclmcht where there has been no actual dissei sin nut if this be the law of Pennsylvania, it is undeniable, that, in. all 'such eases, it reals with the parly having the right of election to determine whether he will consider himself dl scised or not. On this point 0. J. Gibson was equally explicit, when bo declared that such a claim by the occupier of adjoining land cer tainly would not constitute a disseisin, agamst the will of the rightful owner. 0 Watts 170. Dut this is not the only case in which the very point Under consideration, lias been sol emnly decided by lids Court, adversely to tho doctrine of Waggoner v. Hastings and its pro geny SO recently ns 1848 it was decided "that marking the lines of the intruder s claim and getting an unofficial survey of it. including a portion of the plaintiff's survey. although ac companied with actual residence and cultivation mlhiii the lines thus marked, hat outside of the plaintiff's survey, continued for 21 years, did not give the disseisor title fo any part of he surrey on irhieh he had made no actual enclos ure or improvement. Altemns r. Irlinl.lc. U Harr, 338. In the case last oiled, m addition to lbo actual possession outside the lines oj the haul title, there had been an actual possession by a' clearing and cultivation within Its lines far 20 years, bat as lids falls a year short of the period required by law it was licit! to amount to nothing. This decision was placed upon tho ground 1 that an alleged possession or claim which was neither notorious, palpable nor visible within the plaintiff's lines, never was nlcndcd to work a divootituro of title. That the seising or possession of tho plaintiff was no ousted or moved by making their marks, tMinullieirircd by law, whether there were few or many wit - i„ the plaintiff's linre, .m Ol occupancy by clearing, grubbing or within Ihe lines, so as to gm warning of dan. ger,9 Barr. 233. In support of 11)18 amnion &r. Justice Coulter himself, a lawyer of largo experience in tho land law of Pennsylvania, re marked as the organ of tho Court, that before a slonc is rolled from its bed, or a hush grub bed from its place, or a tree felled to tho rerih on Ihe plaintiff's land, so as to give km ««<( notice, tho statute is made to nm against him -Tho piainliff, if ho traversed his land ally and perceived tiicsc marks, whether there wore two ora dozen, may have supposed that tho? were made by a hunter of deer to desig nate a path.,' He could, see no improvement or actual' occupation within his lints. .Upon whom then would he niako his entry, oragalnsl whom would lie bring his ejectment? This Statute of Limitation was npt made to steal people’s land from them, but for • the quoting it estates and the greater seonnty of real plu party. It iippo»)C » forfeiture* upon those who permitted an estate to grew up iw knowledge', awl become penmnen by an actual Abtofio'ns and adverse pbssossiort tor 21 vOarsi” This decision .was pronounced by tie unanimous voice of all Hie Judges who lipd Ihe year before agreed to tho decision in Waggoner i. Hastings. 5 Barr, SOO. aml increry.^ tial particular )t is in direct conllict with it- An nttcimit has been made to reconcile the two decisions by drawing a distinction between an official add unofficial survey. But no spchdis-1 tmolion exists. AH surveys made upon land previously aiipropriatcd. without authority from tho owner, arc unauthorized ana 701a, and ato necessarily unofficial. •j’bo CoraraonwifiUh, m Iht »le of her landi, l/jwia, 0. J. AT $2,00 PER ANNUM NO. 41. has no attributes-of soverignty. She nets in business of that kind as & private individual, and is bound by the same rules of la\v and justice that govern individuals. After selling the land once she has no more right to enter upon it for the purpose of survey ing it to another than an individual grantor has to commit a trespass on his grantee. The sur veying of appropriated land, on the contrary .is positively forbidden by statute. The Common wealth and her agents and vendees are bound to take notice of a valid survey (parked uj>on the ground and returned into the land office.— 1 The parlies who attempt to violate the rights ! of properly by making a second and illegal i survey deserve no favorable consideration what | ever. To call a survey thus made an ojficioi , act, because it was made by a deputy surveyor lis an abuse of terms. There is not the least spark of official authority fur a second sale of tnc land. It is true that the net is clothed in the garb of official formality. But after pjirt* ing with the laud the Slate had no further right over it in form or in substance, except that of eminent domain. No man is bound to examine the land office for such unauthorized acts. No one is bound to take notice of them. The owner may, If he thinks proper, punish the entry on his land for such a purpose by bring* ing an action of trespass agaiimt the deputy surveyor and all concerned with him in the act. But if he has no notice of it, chooses to disregard the temporary trespass os doing him no essential injury, the title to his land is not endangered by his forbearance.- Every argu ment tending to show that otT'Unauthorized survey of land already appropriated docs not disseise the legal owner or give the wrong doer actual possession, applies with equal force to a survey made without authority by a deputy surveyor, and to one madebv a private individ ual both arc alike unauthorized, both are alike trespasses. Neither gives ocluai visible and notorious possession to the wrong doer. Neith er gives the owner notice that his right of pro perly has Wei* invaded. Neither furnishes him with the means of knowing against whom to make his entry or bring bis action. Neither enables bun to sustain ins ejectment, should he bring one. because proof of actual possession by the defendant is essential to sustain the ac -1 lion. Bail/ vs. Fairplay, 0 Binn. 454. A principle oi law widely takes away a man’s title to his laud for an omission to bring an eject ment for a trespass in its nature so secret that be would not be presumed to have any know ledge of it, would render all the titles to the uncultivated land of the Stole of no value. To require an ejectment in a ease where the actiqn could not bo sustained, for want of possession in the defendant, is preposterous. And even If he might maintain an ejectment by electing to consider himself disseised where no actual dis seisin has taken place, the right of action com mences wall his election, and cannot exist with out it. It is, therefore, absurd, and contrary to all our ideas of law. that a man should be barred /or nof mojbing an election to consider hutveif disseised! Such a doctrine means nothing less than that ho has no election at all. I dial must, under penalty of losing bis land,con-1 aider himself out of possession whenever an ad. I joining occupant chooses to lay claim to It. at* ] ■_ neither criers. upon ” nor tecs possession of any ban of it, por gives 1 him any notice .whatever of his claim. . T7e nave seen'that there 14 nb substantial dis tiriotiod -botwwn tl>*-c«wi xg. Hastings and AUemus Trimble. The loiter over-ruled the former before ony serious mis chief had arisen from the error. We have also seen that the decision in Woggoncr vs/ IlnsU ingawas contrary, to the principles running through all the eases on the Statute of Limita tions whifch had been previously decided, and especially in conflict with the decision in Wright vs. Guier. 9 Watts, 172. The attempt to reconcile Waggoner vs. Hasting with Wright vs. Guier, on the supposed distinction between an official and an unofficial act is more manifest ly futile than was the eflort to moke it stand in harmony with AUemus vs. Trimble. In Wright vs. Outer the occupier of the adjoining land claimed to hold part of the valid title, by Vir tue of o levy sale and conveyance by a sheritl, under process from a Court of competent juris diction. and that conveyance was duly orknow lodged In open Court and sanctioned by its de cree. The claimanthod all tbc forms of ojfuiat authority, but inasmuch as the debtor, as whose land it was sold by the SlirrifT. did not own the land, the conveyance gave the purcha ser no title. It stood like the caws of o sale bv the State after sho previously disposed of oil her interest in the land. , . In bolh eases the acts were unaullionr.cd by law. and gave neither title nor possession totlic purchaser. And no claimant under either of such unauthorized acts could acquire the pos session from lho rightful owner without on ac tual entry upon some part of his land. The rule in Waggoner vs. Hastings, had its origin in the Supremo Court. It was unheard of previously among the legal profession, and had not tlic slightest existence in the customs of the people. It had never been countenanced by any oi the experienced President Judges, whoso hahltß and practice had made .them familiar with the Land Law of the Slate. U came suddenly in to existence by overthrowing their well consid ered decisions in different parts of thei Slftte."-.- Wageoner vs. Hastings, 5 Barr. 3021; Sciglo vs. loudcrhack, 6 Barr, 490. Eron the learn ed Judge whose solitary dissent from the opin ion we are now delivering marks h.s rcoentcon version to tiro error, had unhesitatingly ruled h.point differently in Seiglo ys. Tho counsel had not presumed to start the doc trine in the Court below, hut it was pressed n to the service in the Supremo Court, and Kite vs. Brown. 6 Bavr, 201, was cited as ruling the very point. That ease rules no such point: on the contrary, it is an authority in harmony with all the previous dcciHlona. Thorasaisnot accurately rcporleel. The plaintiffs “I"'? 1011 Ilflccn warrants and surveys made In 1 '9l Tire surveys were all made at one lime in a sin gle'block, with the exterior linos of the block marked, but none of the interior I met dengnn ting one trad from another had ever (I«V marked on the ground. These facts are well remembered by Mr. Justice Wwxlward. who made the decision in the Court below, and whoso opinion was affirmed by tins Court. Under these circumstances. H is evident that the whole fifteen surveys adjoining each other in a single Mock, without interior lines, all made at one time and owned by the aamo par ty, were essentially hut one tract, wbioh the owner might occupy or subdivide at hu ptca anre. The defendant claimed, under a junior warrant and surrey, which interfered with parts of seven or eight of the plaintiff a warrants.— There had been an actual entry within the plaintiJTe block or (rocf, accompanied with resi dence and valuable improvements therein, in assertion df the defendant's claim. The Court below held Hint the occupancy of part of.tho .plaintiff’s loud by residence and on ■ tivatich. was an ouster of Inc owner ns to all the 1 illtd claimed.'” ■ Tills was in harmony with the uniform current of decisions. It cd tho essential principles which rims throng all ql them, that to affect the plal nim J" 3 way there must boon ' niko To o, the defcod- ant extended aver several of the plaintiff’* «dp reys. The moment severs! -surreys bfeenn vested in one owfli** they arc to bo treated*!* one tract for all the purposes of dissejsfiin.and remedy. Ad entry upon dny'yarl of such trict, under color of title is a disseisin to.the extent of the title claimed by the disscisspr and % .fc owner may redress the wrong by a single ejectr ment as for a single tract. When he finds hid / right of property actually invaded he is bound ■;> to take notice of the Intruder's claim,and Jo re sort, to the appropriate remedy for it,wWurfHhe period required hy the statute. There is nothing, whatever, in Rite vs. Brown which gives the slightest support to the doctrino that the own er of a single survey may bo deprived of his title by a mere claim, without any actual entry whatever, within his lines. That thelcathcd and nblp Judge, who decided both causes in in the Court below, understood the distinction between them, is apparent in the cases W ro ported in the book- He decided one of thepi in favor of the claim under the statute of lipiitff- ■ tiona, and the other against it, and he now TuR . ly concurs in this explanation of the difference. Fitch vs. Barr, 8 Maun, 603, is sometimes ciUd gs supporting Waggoner vs. Hastings, bui it gives not the slightest copntenaupp to any sucp principle. , In support of the doctrine of Waggoner v*. Hastings, it has been suggested in subslaticd,* that the ownu-, although in general rcmdipgnt a distance from his wild, uncultivated land*, ought to be gifted with powers of .vision great - enough to sec all the lines which ijvrong ddcra think proper to run thiougb the trackless Wil derness. . . 1 . The bare statement of suoh ft proposition tag sufficient refutation of It. The law is founded on reason, and requires nothing so unreason* able. It has been supposed, also, that an eject* ment may be maintained against a man witlfr out evidence that be ever look possession of any part of the plaintiff's land, or ever ft for thp purpose. Hut this is contrpy to>t|g decision in Bailey vs. Fairplay, 0 liinn. 455-jr 1 Even if the supposition were correct, it fails'lo meet the pinch of the case, bccauscuo jnan is bound to consider himself disseized when r»6 such thing has ever actually occurred. As a drowning man will catch at a straw, BO gument in favor of Waggoner vs. Hastings 14 driven to the last extremity of suggesting that it is “do bad rule to Duxko^tnpp.either improta their lands, or wCtffup to othersit U not perceived how this suggestion can benefit a claimant who has never mode the provements on tlie land which he asks to.pjuq* dcr from the rightful owner. .. • -- . But if such a rule is to be enforced*, U ought to have been made a condition of the 'original grant. To add such a condition afterwards is consistent neither with the obligation of tbtf contract of purchase, nor with the higher gallons of justice. Believing that the principle affirmed goner vs. Hastings, and In the eases governed by it, was a departure from the settled law,and a dangerous invasion of the right of property** tending to render the titles to uncultivated lands insecure and worthless to the owners, wo arc constrained to over-rule it, and to adhere to the law as it stood before that error was' com mitted. It is not our duty “to imparl immoi* lalily to error,” when we can correct It befor# it has become an established rule of property* h cannot be said with any show of reason.lhafc a principle affirmed for the first time in 1847, standing in opposition to all previous aulhon lies, and in conflict with a solemn decision made the year afterwards, is an established rule of property. It was against the general sense of I the profession, and no injury can result from adhering to the ancient land marks* os they stood before they were disturbed. • The survey of 1785, to John OraeflV was well made, on unappropriated land, and by cpinpe* tent authority. The plaintiff below, claimed to hold a part of it by adverse possession,oh the ground that the lines of their unauthorized Ju nior survey interfered with it, and that .they had actual possession of that part of their sur vey which did not interfere. with it. They never entered within the Vines of the Grata sur vey, never cleared a foot of land, or cut a atlclL v of wood or limber, orcxcrciscd any act of own -5 crahip upon it. Even the imaginary Jmer of their survey do not appear toJiavo bcca ly marked npori'KSyiSßrt'of the Graeff’ tract—. We hare alrcady of-taxes; olooeTwfll not give the junior surrey Actual. possession of the interference. -But conceding that it would, did'tho plaintiff below pay th* taxes on the Graeff land 1 or any part of it, (far, 21 years before suit brought. Payment of tax ea (or a less period than 21 years would bo a* incffbotual as an adverse possession, for a lea* time than that required. , - - j The ejectment was brought on the 271 h of April, 1050. The payment of taxes, to haw any legal effect, roust htvo commenced in 1829.* But in that year, and in the two following years*- the plaintiffs below were assessed for only 100, ocrcs, including thcirlog building and saw mill. Their log building And saw mill were on their two tracts, In the names of Mary Weed aqd Aaron Levy, the first containing 388 acres,anff the other 444 acres. They had, besides; 1 threw other adjoining tracts, liicir whole claim.un der their five surveys, amounted to The Graeff survey contained 4091 acres.' Pe« dueling that from the amount contained fit the plaintiff* surveys leaves them 1621 acres, fa? which they might have paid the taxes without 1 interfering with, or paying any pari of the cs on the Grat'd survey. . t • But during 1820. r 3O. '3l, they only poid v toxes on 100 acres, hls plain, thorcfort.theYi did not pay the taxes even on their own laud*; The presumption is, that the 100 acres for, which they paid were their own. There IB M evidence to show that these 100 acres included any part of the Graeff survey. 1 • If they did. the plaintiff* have failed to Show it, and they have, therefore, failed to make out the ingrediert on which they rely to give valid ity to their claim under the statute of limita tions. It was error, to leave the ease to the jury, on the question whether the plaintiffs belovv-iulcn* ded uy the omission to pay taxes to abandon their possession. They never hod onr P o ®*”*. ion of the land in controversy. They had,; therefore, nothing of thokimi which « u O* abandoned. Even if payment of taxes 21 j ears (rave them possession, payment for a less period would not do so. The intention not to aband-' on is immaterial. . . 11 It is scarcely necessary to say, that me Ofl* fendant below had a right to defeat the plain tiffs action by showing a subsisting title in. John Graeff. no rule is belter settled than this, 1 Kennedy vs. Speer. 3 Walls, 77- P™Ur Hnr evidence in the cause, theUradf survqrwas *> subsisting title. The plaintiffs below had no_ right to recover any part of it, and the jury should hare been so instructed. Judgment reversed, and venire facias de W)TO awarded. Paorrorit. or GLi.r-Prolcr.or Bnlf bai crrrlcd on tiro capcrlmonla rot .-going by Car. cndlrli. to ahow lh«l glart, whenheated, '* h good conductor of electricity, end li crpcclrily n.cful In delicate rrio.tchci, from the facility with which the paaaago ol the Impulae rosy OT controlled, by a aimplo alteration of. the tclnpeh .Into. It eppoare, elro, that glarr win eofvd Intlerd of the liquid conductor In tho pile,-a* alternate dlthea of bran, alno, and glaaa, ar» found to produce olfccllto vollalo fcralta, , jyjr, The Sopoca Valla RtviiUt tearthlly fella of tho following ■< moalanoholy alfalr >" "M Niagara Falla, on laat Friday night, a young roan, namo unknown , who had boon stfasriw-'iw tHtpi morning In bed. • i • of notAtoci now stored In, fhd TUfl farniori in Vermont,i»ttnd(tmmQOfc largo" The Weather, and tho lnorpawlt«r r n- of railroad (Voighla. have IWovOntoJ ,%lf “ for a market. Tho BtolllehofoAr f,l^v,c n r "° . ll a * ovor 200 buihol* worb.MHtn Wl’lSton laat week. In lo|a.to ault.puroM*, ora, at 10 to II » 8 centa por buahol. . ■ .
Significant historical Pennsylvania newspapers