set aside a conviction for trespass, on the ground, as I understand,
of his not having committed one. The principal points of the case are
admitted, as also the fact of Mr. Jorrocks's toe, or a part of his toe,
having intruded upon the respondent's estate. Now, so far as that point
is concerned, it seems clear to myself and to my brother magistrates,
that it mattereth not how much or how little of the toe was upon the
land, so long as any part thereof was there. 'De minimis non curat
lex'--the English of which is 'the law taketh no cognisance of
fractions'--is a maxim among the salaried judges of the inferior
courts in Westminster Hall, which we the unpaid, the in-cor-rup-ti-ble
magistrates of the proud county of Surrey, have adopted in the very deep
and mature deliberation that preceded the formation of our most solemn
judgment. In the present great and important case, we, the unpaid
magistrates of our sovereign lord the king, do not consider it necessary
that there should be 'a toe, a whole toe, and nothing but a toe,' to
constitute a trespass, any more than it would be necessary in the case
of an assault to prove that the kick was given by the foot, the whole
foot, and nothing but the foot. If any part of the toe was there, the
law considers that it was there _in toto_. Upon this doctrine, it is
clear that Mr. Jorrocks was guilty of a trespass, and the conviction
must be affirmed. Before I dismiss the case I must say a few words on
the statute under which this decision takes place.

"This is the first conviction that has taken place since the passing
of the Act, and will serve as a precedent throughout all England. I
congratulate the country upon the efficacy of the tribunal to which
it has been submitted. The court has listened with great and becoming
attention to the arguments of the counsel on both sides: and though
one gentleman with a flippant ignorance has denounced this new law as
inferior to the pre-existing system, and a curse to the country, we,