entlemen_. It was
far otherwise in 18--(the period named in the text.)

Note 22. Page 433.

Before perusing this opinion, the reader should refer to the pedigree,
_post_ 441; without which the opinion will not be fully understood.

Note 23. Page 435.

See the note on page 437.

Note 24. Page 437.

Till within a few years before the period in question, the law of
England regarded the act done by Mr. Steggars as amounting only to a
_breach of trust_, and consequently subjecting him to no _criminal_
liability; on the ground that the L700 _never having been actually in
his master's possession_, could not be the subject of a _felonious
taking_. The alarming consequences of this doctrine led to the passing
of stat. 39 Geo. III. c. 85, [passed on the 12th July 1799,] which
declared such an act of embezzlement to be felony, punishable with
fourteen years' transportation: this was lately repealed, but re-enacted
by stat. 7 and 8, Geo. IV. c. 29, Sec. 47, [passed on the 21st June, 1827,]
on the occasion of consolidating that branch of the criminal law.--See 4
COLERIDGE'S _Blackst. Comment._ p. 231 (_note_).

Note 25. Page 442.

The popular maxim that "possession is nine-tenths of the law," is
founded on the salutary and reasonable doctrine of the law, that the
party _in possession_ of property is presumed to be the owner until the
contrary shall have been proved. Consider how intolerable, and, in fact,
destructive of civil society would be an opposite rule--if every one in
the enjoyment of property were liable to be called upon to explain to
any one challenging his right, how that right had been acquired! By the
operation of the rule laid down in the text, a defendant in ejectment
may (except in the case of landlord and tenant) always defeat the
action, simply by showing the real title to be in _some third
party_--without showing that the defendant holds possession with the
consent, or under the authority of the real owner.--(_Roe_ v. _Harvey_,
4 Burr. 2484; _Doe_ v. _Barber_, 2 T. R. 749.) The defendant's evidence
is thus altogether confined to falsifying his adversary's proofs, or
rebutting the presumptions which arise out of them.--ADAMS _on
Ejectment_, p. 319.--(3d Ed.)

Note 26. Page 443.

See the note to Vol. II., Chapter V.

Note 27. Page 443.

Lynx is here glancing at a rule of the Roman law on a point of great
difficulty, interest, and importance--_i. e._ where two persons above
the age of pu