|
|
|
|
|
|
|
94 PATTERSON v. M'CAUSLAND.
I have nowhere met with the mention of any one single in-
stance, in which the number of the concentrical layers, which
could be distinctly counted, in the transverse section of the trunk
of any forest tree, of a foot or more in diameter, had been found
exactly to correspond with the years of its age, as otherwise well
and positively known and ascertained. Yet it is most manifest, that
until the, regular, uniform, and exact coincidence between the
number of the concentric layers in the wood of trees and the
years of their age, has been so demonstrated by observation and
proof, as the term of gestation of animals has been, &c., there can
be no clear and sure foundation for the hypothesis, that the number
of such concentrical layers does denote the age of trees, or the
progress of their growth. But even if this notion were shewn to
be well founded, it would call for evidence destructive of that
by which it was given. The production of the necessary evidence
of the lapse of years, by cutting out, as in this instance, a block
of sufficient dimensions to exhibit a distinct view of the number
of the concentrical layers, formed since the time in question, might
occasion the death of the very boundary tree intended to be shewn
and re-established; so that the production of such evidence would,
by destroying that of which it had been a component part, pre-
vent a recurrence to the same kind of proof thereafter; or, in other
words, to prove a living boundary by such means, it would be ne-
cessary to destroy it. This hypothesis, however, resting, as it yet
does, altogether upon speculation and conjecture, cannot be judi-
cially regarded as affording evidence worthy of any consideration
whatever.
Rejecting this hypothesis, the testimony of the witnesses stands
in all respects unimpeached, and the line must be carried to the
black oak, as called for and proved; and, consequently, no va-
cancy is left between Jolly's First Attempt, and Long Fought and
Dear Bought, over which a resurvey from Litten's Fancy, can be
so extended as to embrace any part of M'Causland's First Attempt.
Whereupon it is Ordered, that the caveat of Robert M'Causland
be sustained; that the caveat of Patterson & Ellicott be overruled;
and that Patterson & Ellicott pay the costs of both caveats, to be
taxed by the Register.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
