the accuser add a charge of breach of the king’s peace (nisi accusator adjiciat de pace Domini Regis infracta). 1 Reeves observes, “In this distinction between the sheriff’s jurisdiction and that of the king, we see the reason of the allegation in modern indictments and writs, vi et amis, of ‘the king’s crown and dignity,’ ‘the king’s [85] peace,’ and ’the peace,’—­this last expression being sufficient, after the peace of the sheriff had ceased to be distinguished as a separate jurisdiction.” 1

Again, it might be said that, if the defendant’s intent or neglect was essential to his liability, the absence of both would deprive his act of the character of a trespass, and ought therefore to be admissible under the general issue.  But it is perfectly well settled at common law that “Not guilty” only denies the act. 2

Next comes the argument from authority.  I will begin with an early and important case. 3 It was trespass quare clausum.  The defendant pleaded that he owned adjoining land, upon which was a thorn hedge; that he cut the thorns, and that they, against his will (ipso invito), fell on the plaintiff’s land, and the defendant went quickly upon the same, and took them, which was the trespass complained of.  And on demurrer judgment was given for the plaintiff.  The plaintiff’s counsel put cases which have been often repeated.  One of them, Fairfax, said:  “There is a diversity between an act resulting in a felony, and one resulting in a trespass ....  If one is cutting trees, and the boughs fall on a man and wound him, in this case he shall have an action of trespass, &c., and also, sir, if one is shooting at butts, and his bow shakes in his hands, and kills a man, ipso invito, it is no felony, as has been said, [86] &c.; but if he wounds one by shooting, he shall have a good action of trespass against him, and yet the shooting was lawful, &c., and the wrong which the other receives was against his will, &c.; and so here, &c.”  Brian, another counsel, states the whole doctrine, and uses equally familiar illustrations.  “When one does a thing, he is bound to do it in such a way that by his act no prejudice or damage shall be done to &c.  As if I am building a house, and when the timber is being put up a piece of timber falls on my neighbor’s house and breaks his house, he shall have a good action, &c.; and yet the raising of the house was lawful, and the timber fell, me invito, &c.  And so if one assaults me and I cannot escape, and I in self-defence lift my stick to strike him, and in lifting it hit a man who is behind me, in this case he shall have an action against me, yet my raising my stick was lawful in self-defence, and I hit him, me invito, &c.; and so here, &C.”