Year: |
1882 |
Citation: |
73 Me. 441 |
Jurisdiction: |
Maine |
People: |
|
Law type: |
|
Full name: |
William E. Barrows vs. John M. McDermott |
Court: |
Maine Supreme Judicial Court |
Summary
In Barrows v. McDermott, the legal subject matter was about trespass and common law rights. See generally Barrows v. McDermott, 73 Me. 441 (1882). It concerned a 20-acre pond (called Grindstone pond) located in Howard Township in Piscataquis County, Maine. Id. at 446. Plaintiff William Barrows sued defendant John McDermott for trespassing on his land.
The plaintiff owned 20-acres of land which included a natural pond. Id. Most of the land was uncultivated, except for two acres near the pond which were cleared and cultivated. Id. The plaintiff installed signs around the pond that warned against trespassing or fishing in the pond. Id. In the summer of 1880, the defendant went to fish in the pond – like much of the public had done in the 35 years before the signs were posted - by walking through the portion of the plaintiff’s cultivated land. Id. at 446-47. He did this without permission from the plaintiff and walked away with fish from the pond. Id.
The defendant argued the common law right to fishing as a defense against trespass, citing the Massachusetts Bay Colonial Ordinance of 1641. Id. The statute ruled, “the right of free fishing and fowling for all in and upon any great pond lying in common and containing more than ten acres in extent with the incidental right to ‘pass and re-pass on foot through any man's property for that end so they trespass not upon any man's corn or meadow.’” Id. The plaintiff argued that the ordinance had no jurisdiction over Maine. Id.
The judges found that the ordinance had its place in Maine common law, and that it was not their place to dismantle it – it was the legislature’s decision. Id. at 447-49. They concluded that the law applied to the plaintiff’s pond as it was in his actual possession and was more than 10 acres. Id. at 446-51 However, they also concluded the part of the land the defendant walked through was considered a meadow, as it had been cultivated. Id. at 452. They concluded the defendant was liable for trespass but only fined him $1. Id.
The opinion did not say who was the enslaved person, but it was likely the defendant. The legal subject matter of this case dealing with trespass and common law are the main elements dealt with in the decision. Also, this case has been cited multiple times by Maine Law’s OCLJ with law reviews that concern the public’s right to water access. See Sarah M. Reiter, THE FUTURE OF THE PUBLIC TRUST: THE MUDDIED WATERS OF ROCKWEED MANAGEMENT IN MAINE, 25 Ocean & Coastal L.J. 325 (2020); Robert George, COMMENT: THE "PUBLIC ACCESS DOCTRINE": OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO SUN, SURF, AND SAND, 11 Ocean & Coastal L.J. 73 (2005); Allison Kuhns, ACCESS FOR THE FUTURE: IMPROVING MAINE'S IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE THROUGH MUNICIPAL CONTROLS TO ENSURE COASTAL ACCESS FOR CONTINUING BENEFIT TO MAINE'S PEOPLE AND ECONOMY, 25 Ocean & Coastal L.J. 289 (2020).