Yet  the  practical  carrying  out  of  the  right  thus  confceded,  is,  in
some  circumstances,  dangerous ;  and,  wherever  admitted,  it  should
be  carefully  guarded.^

1  Gray  v.  Combs,  7  J.  J.  Mar.  478, 483.  7  &  8  Geo.  4,  c.  18,  §  1  (now  superseded
See  also  McClelland  v.  Kay,  14  B.  Monr.  by  24  &  25  Vict.  c.  100,  §  31,  containing
103.  substantially  the  same  provisions),  that,

2  Ante,  §  609.  "  whereas  it  is  expedient  to  prohibit  the
^  And  see  Bird  v.  Holbrook,  4  Bing.     setting  of  spring-guns  and  man-traps,  and

628.  How  in  Connecticut.  —  In  Con-  other  engines  calculated  to  destroy  hu-
neoticut  it  is  held,  that  spring-guns  may  man  life,  or  inflict  grievous  bodily  harm,
be  set  to  protect  a  shop  against  burglars ;  &c.,  therefore,  &e.,  if  any  person  shall
but,  if  they  endanger  persons  travelling  set  or  place,  or  cause  to  be  set  or  placed,
on  the  highway,  the  setting  of  them  will  any  spring-gun,  man-trap,  or  other  en-
be  indictable  as  a  nuisance.  The  State  gine  calculated  to  destroy  human  life,  or
0.  Moore,  31  Conn.  479 ;  ante,  §  853,  inflict  grievous  bodily  harm  with  the  in-
note ;  post,  §  856.  How  in  England,  tent  that  the  same  or  whereby  the  same
under  Statute,  &c.  —  It  was  provided  by  may  destroy  or  inflict  grievous  bodily

477


§  857  INCIDENTAL  EELATIONS.  [BOOK  VH.
