I was wondering exactly that, thank you for elucidating. Reading into it more than I should, it seems to me like what the plaintiff actually believed is that i

I was wondering exactly that, thank you for elucidating. Reading into it more than I should, it seems to me like what the plaintiff actually believed is that if people thought they could corner cross, it would reduce the value of the property, because it would mean that more people would be emboldened to do it. One group of ladder-bearing hunterrs wouldn't do it themselves, and without the right to cross his property being set in precedent, many groups probably avoided doing it for fear of being sued. The legal gray area dissuaded them. No more! This is one of those times when opening the box killed the cat.