Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1879-01-01
Legal Rights and Duties Of Farmers.
CONCLUDED FROM LAST wEEK.1

on his own land at his peril. lie was liable
if they strayed away into other peoples
grounds. 1t was necessary, therefore, at
common law, that every man should keep
personal watch over his animals, or sur
round his land with fence. This fence
was primarily, therefore, not to keep other
peoples cattle out, but to keep his own in
aud so each owner, if he kept cattle, was
bound to erect the entire fence around his
close, whether his neighbor kept any cattle
or not and if the latter also owned any he
must do the same, or keep his beasts at
home in some other way. But as two par
allel fences would be attended with useless
expense, and as one and the same fence
would answer for two adjoining proprietors,
it was long ago provided by statute law that
adjoining owners of improved lands should
maintain partition fences in equal shares.
And if they did not agree how the fence
should be divided either might apply to the
fence viewers, elected by the town every
year, to decide which half each proprietor
should keep up. And if, after such decision,
either party refused or neglected to build or
keep in repair his portion, the other could
do so and recover the expenses of the delin
quent owner by suit at law. 1t follows
therefore, that if my adjoining owner does
not keep up his half of the fence, and my
cattle get through and injure his crops, he
has no redress against me, since his own
neglect was, in part at least, the cause of his
injury; but now comes in very important
addition to this rule and this is, if my cat
tie stray beyond the Immediately adjoining
land, into the farm of third person, and
these injure his crops, am liable for the
damage to him, although my own half of
fanna 10 rrnnl pI a,,i,,,als aeaat,aI
through my immediate neighbor's defective
fence; because as to all persons except my
nearest neighbor am still bound to keep
my cattle on my own land, and it is no ex-
cuse for me that my neighbor neglected his
half Of our division fence. A, b and c
own three adjoining lots, and AS cattle stray
into BIS land through BIS neglect, he has
no remedy against A but if they stray still
further on to the land of C also, and do
mischief, c has claim for the damages
against A, even though the animals went
through his own broken down fence. A must
keep his animals at home at his own peril.
For similar reasons, if A turns his cattle
into the highway and they come on to your
land from the road, either because your
front fence is defective or altogether gone,
you have remedy against A for all the
damages you sustain, for you are not obliged
to have any fence on the road, except to
keep your own cattle in, and A must keep
his own cattle at home. And so stringent
is the rule, that if other people in roaming
over your grounds, hunting, fishing or berry.
ing, leave your bars down, by which your
cattle escape into the highway and thence
come into my cornfeld, you are responsible
to me for all the damage, although not &C
tually in fault, if you kept all your fences up,
$50 N H., 143.) On the other hand, if you are
carefully driving your cattle along the high
way and without your fault they break away
from your control and run into my adj
joining land, and you drive them as soon as
you reasonably can, you are not respon-
sible for the damage done, for you had a
right to drive them along the highway,
with proper care and attention, Ola Mas
sachusetts, 1860, while in the other case they
were not lawfully in the highway at all, al
though the owner was not personally at fault.
The proper legal hight of all division fences
in this state is four feet, and they may be
made of rails, timber, boards or stone wall.
A brook, river, pond, ditch or hedge may
also be sufficient, or any other things which
the fence viewers consider equivalent to a
four-feet rail fence. The number of rails
is not prescribed by law. These division
fences may be placed one-half on each side
of the line, even though bitches be used
three feet wide g Met, 1907 and both own
ers have common interest in the whole
fence; and they must be kept in good re-
pair throughout the entire year, unless both
parties otherwise agree. But the duty of
maintaining partition fences by statute ex-
lists only when both parties improve their
lands. 1t would not be just to make man
whose lands are wild, or not improved,
and on which he neither has cattle to
stray away and injure others, or growing
crops which can be injured by other peo-
pies animals, to pay the expense of build
ing or maintaining fence which can be of
no advantage to him. Accordingly if one of
the adjoining owners improves his land, he
has no right to compel the other TO pay any
part OF the expense of fence, and if he
needs fence to keep his own animals at
home, or for any other purpose, he must
build it himself. IT, therefore, A owns a
pasture lot alongside of BIS wood lot, the
latter is not bound by statute to help main
tain fence between them; but if A puts
cattle into his pasture he must keep them
there as best he can, either by watching
them, or, if he thinks it cheaper, by build
ing fence himself around his entire lot. So
II both are wood lots, the owners are not
obliged to erect fence, but if either allows
his cattle to range the woods, he must take
care they do not browse through his neigh
boris woods, or he will be responsible. The
sum OF the whole matter is this BY the
common and general law every man is bound
to keep his own cattle on his own land at
his peril. The duty of doing this by fence
Is created wholly by statute of the com
monwealth, and need not be made except
where the statute clearly requires it. What
we have thus far said as to the Joint ex-
pense OF fences relates only to partition
fences between two farmers. As to fences
along railroad, the law is quite different.
The general railroad law requires the COM
pany TO maintain suitable fence along the
whole line, through woodland as well as i'm
proved land, and the farmer has no part of
the expense TO pay This railroad fence
need not be always four feet high, nor need
it always be so close as the division fence
between landowners. II must be suitable II
merely-suitable for the place where it is
situated and through the woods or where
there is little or no danger of animals stray.
ing on the track, it might be quite light and
yet comply with the law. But If any cattle
of the adjoining landowners do escape
through it on to the track through its insult
ableness, and are there injured by passing
train, the company is responsible. But here
again the same principle comes in which we
have before stated viz the company is not
bound to fence out everybody's cattle, but
only those of the landowner immediately
adjoining. If, therefore, the animals of one
remote from the railroad break out or stray
away from their pasture, and after wan
dering over the intermediate lands finally
lind their way on to the railroad, and there
meet their death, the railroad company il
not liable; the owner should have kept his
cattle on his own lot, and not allowed then
to trespass on others lands COS Mass, SOY
Of course, if they were lawfully pasturng OIL
the lands near the railroad, by permission o.
the landowner, they could be protected il
the same manner as his own animals are.
IMPoUNDTNG CATTLE.
Closely connected with the subject of fence
is that of impounding animals. If you fin,
your neighbours cattei in your cornfield Their
are three courses you may pursue. First, VOL
may put the animals in the town pound
second you may sue the owner for damages
third, or you may quietly turn them into tn
highway and say nothing. OF these tire
the last is the easiest 10 be done and tn
hardest to make up ones mind to do. w
are directed in the good book to forgive GU
neighbor his trespasses, but it says nothinI
about forgiving his cattle their trespasses
If man ever allows himself TO violate tn
II L.. l..