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

Important Beei.ion.
CiRcUIr CouRT, Peoria County, May
Term, lS47.-Hon. John d. Ca
ton presiding.
William Peters as. Samuel Seeley.
This case came on for trial at the
circuit court of this county at the
present term. The amount involv-
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. M :
twas an action oftrcspass brought
by the plaintiff against the defend-
ant, to recover for damage done 70
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 unen-.'
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 paljngs; but that the pslngs
were of such character that they.
would not prevent hogs and cattle
from easily passing through it, into
| tbs ,fald pAl(,t tbs fXiaf%ss 'ktfKSSnyy
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 dama-
ges done by them, whether such
fields were enclosed with good and
sufficient fence or not. Messrs.
Balance s Cooper, for the Defend
ant, contended that though the rule
OF the common law was as stated by
the counsel for the plaintiff, yet that
different rule should prevail in this
state, where there was so much UNI
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 if they neglect
to do so, they wonld not recover for
any injury done by the cattle break
ing into fields not properly fenced.
: At tie request Of the counsel for the
plaintiff the court instructed the ju-
ry as follows, viz;-lf the Jury be-
lievc from the evidence that the
hogs OF Scely went into the plain
tiff . enclosure, and did damage 10
II 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
, mrch as the owner Of field is not
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 no, obliged to fence
the same and il husbsndmen should
make fields in the open prairie, with-
) out any fences, the owners Of cattle
running at large will be liable for
any damage such cattle may DO 10
! the crops. 1t is well that this rule
{ of law has been promulgated, that
The owners Of fields and Of stock,
may respectively know their rights
; and liabilities,