Frostburg mining journal. [volume] (Frostburg, Md.) 1871-1913, 1880-12-04

ago the JOURNAL took ground against
the action of the Council in permit
ting COWS to run at large within the
corporation. The main argument in
the case as against the liberty and
convenience of the cattle. owner was
that no land or lot.owner is compelled
to fence his enclosures against cattle
at large. We are glad to note that
Judge WickeG, of the Circuit Court of
Talbot county, afirms this view in
decisive language, the material por-
ton of which we quote from report
in the st. Michaels Comet Of last
week.
Judge Wickes said distinctly that in
Talbot county, in the absence of any local
law on the subject, the law is that the
owner of cattle must himself keep his cat
tie from trespassi ng on the enclosures of
others. The law imposes the responsible.
ity on the owner of the cattle, and does
not oblige his neighbors to make fences
secure enough to turn cattle. Whether
it is u strong bull or puny hcifcr that
breaks through strong fence or a poor
one, the owner of the animal is response
bic. A man has no right TO turn his cat
Gle into the public road. 1t is customary
to do so, but the man who does il, doe s it
at his peril.
When damaged by the trespassng of
cattle, man may proceed under the es-
tray law the provisions of which are
clearly laid down in the code, IN which
case he has no claims for damages, but
only for the arresting keeping, and ad-
vertising the cattle. Or he may proceed
Ivy way Of action Of damages against the
owner of the cattle. But he cannot take
both remedies. Under the common law
an estray was trespassing animal, the
owner Of which was unknown, but under
the statutes of this State any trespassing
animal is ans etray, whether or not the
owner is known.
The statute 10 which the Comet re-
fers is general, and although local
laws, we believe, are understood to
supersede the former within territory
to which they apply, it is probably
still a question whether municipal
permission, so at variance with the
tenor of the general law, is equivalent
in force and effect to a legislative
enactment Of local application.
Another common sense deduction
from the premises is that the case de-
cided by Judge Wickes was between
out-of-town farmers, without the spec
ial protection which municipalities are
supposed to confer upon their citizens
in consideration Of special taxes paid
to sustain an additional but subordi-
nate form Of government. If, there
fore, in general terms the law is SO
rigid that "a man has no right to
turn his cattle into the public road"
in sparsely settled communities, upon
what principle Of law is it that the
same man by removal to town, whore
the opportunities for damage by tre2-
pass are tenfold, may day and night
liberate whole droves upon the public
streets ? Why is public road more
sacred than public street, or coun-
try farm more to be protected than a
town lot
Judge Wickes is right--in law and
common sense. "The law (general) |
is that the owner of cattle must him
self keep his cattle from trespassing
on the enclosures Of others in town,
we take it, as well as country-and
that it "does not oblige his neighbors
to make fences secure enough to turn
CATTLE" We repeat it-he is right
unless the law is fish for the town and
flesh for the country-one thing for
yard, another for farm. We believe,
that all oWnara ara ramon |