Therefore,  —

As  injuring  Property.  —  In  reason,  this  rule  is  not  restricted  to
injuries  to  the  person ;  it  applies  to  injuries  to  the  property  as
well.  And  this  doctrine  of  reason  has  a  sort  of  status  in  the  ad-
judged law.     But,  —

§  575.  Limitations  of  Doctrine.  — As  applied  to  property,  the  rule
meets  with  many  qualifying  rules,  intercepting  it,  and  cutting  it
short ;  *  and,  unless  we  bear  them  in  mind,  we  shall  go  astray.
Indeed,  these  qualifying  rules  are  so  numerous,  and  some  are  so
wide  in  their  influence,  that,  overlying  at  places  the  rule  which
they  qualify,  they  render  it  an  unsafe  guide  to  a  practitioner  not
well  versed  in  this  department  of  our  law.  In  other  words,  the
rule  is  theoretically  correct,  but  practically  it  should  be  applied

C.  287;  Reg.  a.  Hill,  1  Car.  &  K.  168;  United  States  v.  I^usey,  6  Bankr.  Reg.
Reg.  V.  Hillam,  12  Cox  C.  G.  174,  2  Eng.  284.
Rep.  227  ;  Reg.  v.  Beaumont,  12  Cox  C.         i  4  Bl.  Com.  141 ;  1  Russ.  Crimes,  3d
C.  183;  Reg.  v.  Watkinson,  12  Cox  C.  C.  Eng.  ed.  142 ;   1  Hawk.  P.  C.  u.  68,  §  1 ;
271,  4  Eng.  Rep.  547 ;  Reg.  u.  Widdop,  Reg.  v.  Traey,  6  Mod.  30 ;   Rex  v.  Bur-
Law  Rep.  2  C.  C.  3;  s.  c.  nom.  Reg.  v.  dett,  1  Ld.  Raym.  148,149;  Runnells  v.
Widdup,  12  Cox  C.  C.  251.    We  have  Fletcher,  15  Mass.  625 ;   Respubliea  <-.
had  some  American  statutes  of  the  like  Hannum,  1    Yeates,    71;    Tlie  State  </.
