The Emporia news. [volume] (Emporia, Kan.) 1859-1881, 1864-03-26
Prairie Fire Law.


EDITOR News: In your last notice an
anonymous communication upon this sub
ject, purporting to come a from Wales, "
the first part of which-so far as it is in
telligible at all-seems either to cast an i'm
putatiou on the correctness Of Judge Bent's
ruling at the last term of the District Court
for this county, in the case Of Pierce vs..
Smith, or to intimate that there is a differ
ence between him and myself upon tie point
ruled. or that have been guilty of some
neglect Of official duty in similar cases,
though l confess myself in considerable
doubt as 10 what The writer does mean. So
far as [ am concerned 1 do not propose to
yindicats my rulings, or other official acls,
through the columns.o q newspaper. fl
make erroneous rulings our Law provides a
speedy and adequate remedy, viz by hav
ing them reviewed by superior court, and
the errors, if any there be, corrected. Il
seems but fair, however, that Judge Bent
should be placed in the right position be-
fore the community. The ruling in ques-
ton was made upon section four of our
statute in relation TO the firing Of woods,
marshes ard prairies, which is as follows :
"SEc. 4. Nothing herein contained shall
be so construed as to prevent any person
from firing against FIRE. Sc as to protect his
or her pronTs:.tsy from beilg destroyed"
Judge B, instructed The jury upon this
section that in order to bring the defendant
within its provisions, so as to exempt him
from liability for damage occasioned by set
ting out fire, that there must have been a
reasonable probability Of immediate danger
to his property, end not merely that remote
possible contingency which exists in every
prairie country, that some time or other
fire might come along and might occasion
him DANCE, and it was for the jury to de-
termine whether or not that " reasonable
probability of immediate danger" existed
at the time the fire was set out whereby the
damage was occasioned. I have so ruled
on the section, and this is, think, without
doubt, its true construction. To construe
it in any other manner would be to render
the act in relation to prairie fires of no prac-
teal effect whatever for how easy it would
be for defendant to say, when it was sought
to hold him to just account for damage
occasioned by carelessly or maliciously set
ting out fire, that he was only firing against
fire by burning around his house, or field,
or farm, SO as to protect his property from
being destroyed by fire that mightpossiJLy
come along at some future time, and which
might possibly do him some damage and
he would thereby escape from his just liza
bility. This lis not for moment to be
thought of. Common sense and public
policy alike forbid that any such construc-
ton should be given TO the section to which
have referred. Prairie fires are the crying
eyils-the curses-of our State, and there
must be protection against them. What
amount of damage has been done by them
during the past year in this section Let
any rejecting man consider, and he cannot
escape the conclusion that thousands Of
dollars-I had almost said hundreds OF
thousands-worth of property has been
destroyed in this way during the past year in
Lyon county alone. r. n. RuGeLEs.