Keowee courier. [volume] (Pickens Court House, S.C.) 1849-current, 1877-07-12
Tie Fence Law.

Tie Fence Law.
We clip the following from the Marlboro
Planter rs tho views of the editor upon tho
practical working of tho no fence law and its
tendency to promote strife, litigation and
neighborhood difficulties:
Suppose tho stock so enclosed should
happen to escape in tho night and next morn
irS u planter, who was careful to guard
against such accidents and keep his own stock
from depredating upon his ncighbors, should
LOOK out OF n morning upon his growing crop
cattle belonging to his ncighbor that had
accidentally" escaped from his enclosures,
quietly eating up the last stalk that he had
what then? Wouldn't there be moro or loss
of cuss words flying about those cattle, and
wouldn't that planter lose his crop without
redress from his neighbor, who, under the
shade Of tho homestead law, might defy him
to 90 his worst, when ho has nothing that tho
law can reach. How could the planter collect
hil money, even if he obtained Judgment?
The rule is that the party suing is always
liable for tho costs, If they cannot be col
lcctcd from the defendant. SO it might. and
would happen, that for n crop eaten up by
cattle the planter would lose it and have to
pay the costs for suing the man whose cattle
ucSlToycu ~,
1t seems to tho writer that this no fence
law would be q perfect millennium for the
hundreds Of littlo yearlings that are socn
ploughing in the fields around US. OF course
these hungry. starving creatures have to eat
tho owaors have no enclosures sufficient to
keep thcm in securely, and Of course they
will get out every night and what then?
Such lawing and paying of costs was never
heard of rs this now privilege granted to the
planters OF losing their growing crops, accord,
ing to the fence law. would afford. There
would be moro business in tho courts than
ever boforo. and whilst tho planters grew
poorer and poorer every day, the lawyers,
shcrlits, clerks and trial justices would all eet
fat
This seems to us to be the practical work
ing OF this "no fence law" and we caution
our friends not to try the experiment. If it
cond DO certain that every one owning cattle
would be equally honest and capable, as to
keeping them at homo, oil might bc WE'LL but
every ono knows that this would not be the
case, and some would even be glad to see
their cattle faring we'll upon some other
Persons crop, without any expense TO thcm-
selves. They would always get out of their
enclosures accidentally" but there would be
no accident" as to what they atc-it would
DO gone, withontany hope Of redress!
What shall we say as to the peace of the
and night by q"arrols between neighbors,
arising out of the trespasses which unencoscd
crops would tempt others to commit?
We thnk this law would be moro apaly
termed law to destroy the growing crops,
create qnarrels amongst neighbors now
friendly. and increase tho incomes Of oil those
who lo)k to costs for u support.
Let we'll enough alone" is good old
maxim. Better keep up your fences than
n nd o1 ,.,sk ~ 81.
bors.
In the main wo agroo with those sensible
Siows Of tho editor. Tho law is certainly
defective, and under tho constitution law can
never bc made to efsctually protect tho inter.
ests OF the farmer who may suffer from tho
depredations of the. stock Of othcrs. 1t is
we'll known that the provisions Of the home
stead law protect from one half to thrco
f'urths' of our people from the forced collec-
ton OF damages. This bong tho case what
remedy has the'good farmer. when the badly
fenced stock Of another, owning less property
than that exempted from lcvy and sale under
tho constitution, has broken out of its en-
closure and destroyed his crops7 IIo may
sue. getjudgment, and for his loss and trouble
he will havo to pay the cost, thus adding the
injury to wrong. Section 3 cf tho Act
makes the owner Of animals found at largo
in any township where tho stock is enclosed
liable to owners Of crops for oil damages done
by such animals. Section provides tho
remedy by complaint before a Trial Justice,
who will give judgment for tho damages with
loyal costs. or course the exemption law
will hold good against the Judgment, so that
responsible mon must fonce their stock or nav
damages, and then softer their crops to be
destroyed by the stock irresponsible persons,
or fence their crops against such stock, being
thus compelled to fcnco both their stock and
their crops.
Tho only remedy for this dcfoct 10 the law
is eithor'to change tho Constitution, abolisl-
ing the homestead or modifying it SO as to
cover such debts, or to make it a criminal
offence, punishable by fine and Imprisonment
Tor person to fail to enclose his stock with q
ionco which Is Chose high. bull strong and pig
tite." The first would take time, and doubt.
loss could not be passed by n,yote Of tho
people. The latter would lead to endless
litigation to the heavy expense Of tho tax,
payers 10 costs Of prosecutions. Being IN
doubt about the effect of change and in
view of the defects Of Tho law, or the remedies
under the Law, we are Inclined ito't opinion