The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1847-06-11

Important Bsci.ion.
ClRcurr CouRr, Peoria County, May
Term, ls47.-Hon. John d. Ca
ton presiding.
William Peters Us. Samuel Seeley.
This case came on for trial at the
circuit court Of this county at the
present term. The amount involve
ed in the controversy between the
parties was very triaing, yet the
principle involved in it is very inn
portant. 1t is SO important to the
community, and especially to the
farming community, that it should
be understood.
TWAS an action oftrespass brought
by the plaintiff against the defend-
ant, to recover for damage done 20
his crops by the defendants hogs
The plaintiff proved that the defend
ants hogs broke into plaintiffs en-
closure and destroyed several shocks
of wheat, and did other damage 10
his crops. On the part of the de.
PENDANT, it was proved that the hogs
came through the plaintiffs fence on,
the north side of his feld-that the
field was adjacent to the open anen.
closed prairie, where the hogs of
the defendant and other persons run
at large. 1t was also proved that
the plaintiffs fence on the north
side of his field, was made of rails
and palings but that the palings
were of such character that they
would not prevent hogs and cattle
from easily passing through it, into
tbs ,fsl9' prA!( tbs fyiiaaf vas skAHsnyy
insufficient to keep cattle and hogs
out of his field. This was the sub
stance of all the evidence given in
the case.
Onslow Peters, Esq. counsel for
the plaintiff, stated to the jury, that
he understood the rule of law to be,
that the owner Of field was not
obliged to fence it; that owners Of
cattle and other animals let them run
at large at their peril-that when
thus permitted TO 60 at large, if they
entered upon the fields of others
they would be liable for all dana.
ges done by them, whether such
fields were enclosed with good and
sufficient fence or not. Messrs.
Balance & Cooper, for the defend-
ant, commended that though the rule
OF the common law was as stated by
the counsel for the plaintiff, yet that
a different rule should prevail in this
state, where there was so much un-
occupied land that the whole COM
munity had understood the law to DO
otherwise; that though the common
law had not been expressly altered
BY acts ofany legislature, yet that by
the phraseology of many laws that
have been passed, it was manifest
the legislature understood the rule
of law to be, that the owner of fields
must enclose them by good and sulli-
cient fences; and that ifthcy neglect
to do so, they wonld not recover for
any injury done BY the cattle break
ing into fields not properly fenced.
At the request Of the counsel for the
| plaintiff the court instructed the iu-
ny as follows, viz;-lf the jury be-
lievc from the evidence that the
hogs OF Scely went into the plain
- enclosure, and did damage 10
his crops, they will find a verdict
for the plaintiff, and assess his dam
ages, for the amount Of the injury
done: and that it matters not what
was the condition of the plaintiffs
fence, so far as his right to recover
some damages is concerned, mas
muc'l as the owner Of field is net
obliged to keep up fence around
| it so as to keep out his neighbours
hogs and cattle but the owners Of
cattle permitted them to run at
large at their peril. The jury, I'M
der these instructions, rendered q
verdict for the plaintiff.
From the decision Of the court in
this case, as laid down in the above
instructions to the jury il APP
pears to be the law, that own
ers Of fields are not obliged to fence
the same and if husbsnlmen should
make fields in the open prairie, with
out any fences, the owners Of cattle
running atlargc will be liable for
any damage such cattle may DO 10
the crops. lii well that this rule
law has been promulgated, that I
The owners Of fields and Of stock,
may respectively know their rights
and liabilities.