Trespasser

One who does an unlawful act, or a lawful act in an unlawful manner, to the injury of the person or property of another.

One who does an unlawful act, or a lawful act in an unlawful manner, to the injury of the person or property of another. Any act which is injurious to the property of another renders the doer a trespasser, unless he has authority to do it from the owner or custodian; Bradley v. Davis, 14 Me. 44, 30 Am. Dec. 729; or by law; Luddington v. Peck, 2 Conn. 700; Warner v. Shed, 10 Johns. (N. Y.) 138; and in this latter case any defect in his authority, as, want of jurisdiction by the court; Allen v. Gray, 11 Conn. 95; Adkins v. Brewer, 3 Cow. (N. Y.) 206, 15 Am, Dec. 264; defective or void proceedings; Baldwin v. Whittier, 16 Me. 33; Allen v. Greenlee, 12 N. C. 370; misapplication of process; Wickliffe v. Sanders, 6 T. B. Monr. (Ky.) 296; renders him liable as a trespasser. So, too, the commission of a legal act in an illegal manner, as, the execution of legal process illegally; Case v. Shepherd, 2 Johns. Cas. (N. Y.) 27; abuse of legal process; Ragsdale v. Bowles, 16 Ala. 62; exceeding the authority conferred by the owner; Abbott v. Wood, 13 'Me. 115; or by law; Oystead v. Shed, 13 Mass. 520, 7 Am. Dec. 172; Kuhn v. North, 10 S. & R. (Pa.) 399; renders a man a trespasser. A ministerial officer, where it is his duty to act, cannot be made a trespasser; Harding v. Woodcock, 137 U. S. 43, 11 Sup. Ct 6, 34 L. Ed. 580; and acting in obedience to process regular on its face, and issued by a tribunal having jurisdiction and power to issue the process, is not liable for its regular enforcement, although errors may have been committed by the tribunal which issued it; Stutsman Co. v. Wallace, 142 U. S. 293, 12 Sup. Ct. 227, 35 L. Ed. 1018. See False Imprisonment. In all these cases where a man begins an act which is legal by reason of some authority given him, and then becomes a trespasser by subsequent acts, he is held to be a trespasser ab initio (from the beginning), q. v. A person may be a trespasser by ordering such an act done as makes the doer a trespasser; Blake v. Jerome, 14 Johns. (N. Y.) 406; or by subsequently assenting, in some cases; Floyd v. Browne, 1 Rawle (Pa.) 121, 18 Am. Dec. 602; or assisting, though It seems that a verdict for the plaintiff in qudre clausum fregit does not operate as an estoppel in a subsequent action of ejectment; Stevens v. Hughes, 31 Pa. 381.

One who has committed trespass; one who unlawfully enters or intrudes upon another's land or unlawfully and forcibly takes another's personal property.

— Joint trespassers. Two or more who unite in committing a trespass. Kansas City v. File, 60 Kan. i57. 55 Pac. 877; Bonte v. Postel, 109 Ky. 64, 58 S. W. 536. 51 L. R. A. 187

— Trespasser ah initio. Trespasser from the beginning. A term applied to a tort-feasor whose acts relate back so as to make a previous act, at the time innocent, unlawful; as, if he enter peaceably, and subsequently commit a breach of the peace, his entry is considered a trespass. Stim Gloss. See Wright v. Marvin, 59 Vt. 437, 9 Atl. 601.

L fr. To pass over; to pass by; to pass away, to die; to transgress, to trespass.

One who has committed trespass; particularly, one who has entered, without right, upon lands of another; or who has forcibly taken, without right, the personal property of another. Trespasser ab initio. Wrong-doer from the beginning. Sometimes an act which does not appear wrongful, as against the party charged, when originally done, is treated as such, by the doctrine of relation, in view of facts afterwards occurring, or afterwards ascertained. Should a plaintiff's agent direct a wrongful levy of plaintiff's execution, and plaintiff afterwards ratify the direction given; or should an officer levy an execution, supposing it to be valid, and the courts afterwards adjudge it to be void;^ the wrong might be imputed to the original act. In such cases, a person is said to be a trespasser ab of an issue. See JV. Y. Code of Pro. §252. Trial is the examination of a cause, civil or criminal, before a judge who lias jurisdiction over it, according to the laws of the land. More strictly, it is the examination of the matter of fact in issue: of this there are many different species, according to the difference of the subject to be tried; as, for example, trial by record, by inspection or examination, by certificate, by witnesses, and by jury. The first four of these species of trial are only had in certain special and eccentrical eases, where the trial by the country, per pete's, or by jury, would not be so proper or effectual. There were formerly two other kinds of trial, — by wager of battle and by wager of law; but the former was abo Hshed by the 57 Geo.