The aegis & intelligencer. [volume] (Bel Air, Md.) 1864-1923, 1880-12-17
Stock Law, Fences, Estrays and Trespas.
sing Cattle, &c.
AN IMPORTANT DECISION IN THE CIRCUIT
COURT FOR TALBOT co.

| Last Tuesday the court delivered a learned
and exhaustive opinion in the case Of Thomas
II. Oliver vs.. H. Harrison Price, replevin OF
cattle taken up for trespassing on wheat
| field
The court held that the common law in re-
| gard to trespassng cattle, etc, is in force
now in Maryland, and that the rule of law is
| that person is only bound to take care that
his cattle do not wander from his own land
and trespass upon the land of Others that q
fence is for the purpose of keeping your own
stock at home and not to keep others stock
| off, and if any one is damaged by another's
stock trespassing on his land, whether fenced
in or not, whether cleared land, or wood land
| or marsh land, he c,n recover damages from
| the owner of the stock so trespassng.
The court also held that under the statute
law of Maryland (Art. 81, title "Estrays and
Trespassing Cattle" n person had three rem,
edies for the trespass on his enclosure by any
cattle, horses, sheep, hogs or any domestic
animals.
list. He could take up the animal, and with
in reasonable time thereafter go before a
Justice of the Peac and make affidavit that he
| took up the animal as an estray and publish
said affidavit and the Justices certificate, etc
Ifhe complies with the law he can recover
all expenses incurred by the person taking
up the estray and keeping it, including the
cost of advertising Z. any one avails him.
self of this remendy he cannot recover dam
ages for the injury done.
I'd. Any person aggrieved by the tres
pass upon his enclosure of any cattle may
impound the. same and have the damages
sustained by the trespass appraised by two
disinterested persons and unless the damages
and reasonable compensation for feeding
the property impounded is paid may
at the expiration of ten days sell the same at
public auction, by giving the notice required
by the statue. This remedy seems to apply
where the owner of the cattle IS not known.
3D. 1fany cattle, etc., trespassing on the
Enclosures of any person be distrained doing
damages, the owner of which is known, if
the owner do not tender compensation for
the damage within five days after such dis
tress and notice given to him, then the party
taking up such cattle, etc may, by complying
with the statute, have the property sold and
retain enough to pay him for the damages he
has sustained and all charges arising from
such trespass.
The court did not attempt to define what
was an inclosure by the statute. 1t held that
the word Enclosure as used in the statute was
to be taken in its common acceptation, mean
ing some inclosed property, not in tech
nical sense. 1t did not say it was to be a
weak one, hedge, or embankment, it meant
any Enclosure whereby the land was separated
from other land. But in the case of Oliver
VS.. Price the court decided that there was
an Enclosure there, and the evidence was that
the fence around the wheat field was only
two feet high in some places
1t will thus be seen that there is n strong
and efficient stock law in Talbot county, be-
cause here we have no local law in regard to
fences, except division fences.
Any man aggrieved by the trespass on his
property of any cattle, horses, hogs, ETC., has
four complete remedies, one at common law
and three by the statute law of this State,
and if he chooses to take all his fences down
he can recover damages for any trespass on
his land and can impound, keep, and if ne
ccssary sell the animal to pay for its trespass
and damage.
Any cattle, horses, hogs, ETC., can be taken
up and impoundcd, when found trespassing
on the highways and public roads, by the
owners Of the property adjoining such roads,
as the heritage, grass, etc, belong to the owner
of the adjoining property and the public only
have an easement in the said road-EaSt0n
Star