The Superior times. [volume] (Superior, Wis.) 1870-1912, 1875-10-14
Damages by Neighbors' Fowls.


There are few things which make
more trouble between neighbors
than the incursions of pigeons,
chickens, or some other creatures
into grounds where they are de,
structive and not desirable. OF
course people who have lived
side by side together, are much in
the condition Of married
people who have to give
and take, as the saying is, if they
expect to get along comfortably.
Much annoyance is often endured
in this way, and very often to the
extent Of one party feeling that he
has 20 do all the taking, while the
giving all comes from the other
side.
In all annOyances of this kind
it requires good deal of cool com
mand of ones self to get along well,
and much may be done by the
aggrieved parry doing something
himself to keep out intruders, when
that something does not cost too
much time and labor to do.
Attempts at coercion, or anything
that may create bad feelings are
not wise as a rule, and not till all
kinder methods fail. 1t IS well,
however, for all to understand
"hat i tho light of parties in these
cases as the law understands il.
There IS a general impression
that the keeper Of y drove of fowls
or flock Of pigeons has no respon-
sibility III regard tokeeping these
annoyanceS. from his neigh bors.
If he has good four-railed fence,
such as would keep a horse or COW
Fl ON breaking through, he thinks in
many cases that he is relieved from
all other care IS to what other
things may 90; and he contends
that it is the neighbor who is to
keep out the visitors if their
presence be undesirable to him.
But this is not so. We have now
before rs the report Of n case sent
to court in order to test this very
thing. One neighbor had taste for
flowers and prided himself consid-
erabN on his garden. The other
neighbor loved fowls, and kept
numerous flock of them. The fowls
loved flowers also, and made tre-
quent visits to the neighbours beds.
The fowl owner was repeatedly
appealed to; but he always fell back
on what he considered his rights
which were, he thought, that the
neighbor who objected to the
chickens should put up a fence
sufficient to keep the fowls out.
But the decision was adverse to
any supposed right, and he had to
pay good sum tor flowers DESTROY
ed, time charged in driving chickens
out, and in watching the beds, and
a large number Of similar items,
besides the costs of the whole suit.
This was civil suit for damages
Only; but the case could be made
to assume still more serious aspect
in q charge of keeping a nuisance,
and IN various ways a man might
come TO grief who INDUCED the
pastime of permitting his teathered
f1ockS to Craze on another's pasture.
1t Is a very common thing for
one who IS III most matters honest
and correct, to allow his feathered
stock to wander over his neigh boris
grounds. Sometimes it is thouuht
lessnesS and he might not permit it
if he had an idea how sorelv his
neighbor felt about it but generally,
we believe, 1t arises from this very
feeling of right-that it Is the rioht
Of the opposite party to keep them
out, and not his to keep them at
home and it is in view of this
feeling that we thought the decision
referred to worth prominent COM
ment.- Germantown Telegraph.