Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1882-07-27
Stock Running at Large.

Inc question whether domestic amin
ais, should be tolerated in the highways
has been much discussed. 1t is suffic-
iently important to merit the attention
it has received; for it has been stated
that the farm fences of the country cost
rs much as the farm houses and barns.
| do not vouch for the accuracy of
this statement, but the expense, which
is occasloned far more by the necessity
Of fencing straying cattle out, than by
fencing our own cattle in.
1t is a general doctrine of law in this
country that the land in the highway
belongs To the owners of land living
along each side. With few exceptions
the American farm extends to the mid
die of the road, and the public has only
the right to pass and repass there in an
orderly manner. and the right to keep
the way in repair Every other use of
the highway which does not interfere
with this public right, belongs to the far
mer owning the adjacent land. He
owns the soil, grass, trees, stones and
gravel, and everything else upon the
surface or under it, and may use them
all in any way that does not affect the
public right of passage; and The law
will protect his ownership in them Just
as much rs though they were inside his
fence. No other person has any more
right to pasture his stock there than in
incloscd lands; nor can he hitch his horse
to tree there without being liable for
the trespass, especially if the horse
should gnaw a tree or do other damage;
he can intact, only pass orderly along.
Now with respect to domestic amin
ais, the common law required every
man who owned such to keep them upon
his own premises at his peril. 1t did
not require him to fence his neighbour S
cattle out. but only to fence his own cat
tie in, or otherwise restrain them. This
too may be stated as the law quite gen.
orally in this country, with the single
exception that it has been restricted by
local statutes so far as relates to the
owners of adjoining lands. For it would
be folly to require each to fence in his
cattle against the other, as two parallel
line fences would be a useless expense.
Statutes have therefore been passed re-
curing adjoining owners of improved
lands to maintain partition fences in
equal shares; and if either is in default,
he has no remedy for the trespass by
the stock of the other Stafford VS.. In
gersoll, Hill, 3S.)
As to road fences, the laws do not,
with the possible exception of those of
New York above noted, impose any
obligation; and the farmers may, if he
choose, remove such fences, without i'm
pairing his right of action against the
/ &c Il, l., a.
enter and do damage by that means.
As a person, therefore, has no right to
let his cattle go in the highway, let us
see what his liabilities are if he does so.
! In the first place he is liable for the tres
pass they commit by simply being there
unlawfully He is liable for the grass
or other heritage they consume, for the
injury they occasion by uprooting the
sod or barking the trees, and for any
other damage they may reasonably be
expected TO do. If while there they
hook, or kick, or bite any person law
fully using the way, he would be liable
for the injury Barnes VS.. Chaplin, 4
| Allen AID possibly even though he did
not know of their vicious disposition A
man once turned his horse into u public
place where children were playing, one
of whom began switching the horse,
which turned and kicked and killed the
child. He was convicted of manslaugh-
ter 90 Cox 1922. The owner of drove
of cattle. which is allowed to stop and
feed in front of a farm, is just as much
liable for the feed taken rs if they did
/ the same inside the fence, The owner
of horse which gnaws and banks a
tree in the highway. is liable for the in
| jury, whether the horse is lawfully IN
the highway or not, and the owner OF
the tree may remove the horse without
becoming liable Gilman VS.. Emery, 81
Me. 460).
Notwithstanding the fact that the
farmer owns the land of the road, he
cannot use it himself for any purpose
which at all interferes with the public
rights there. He cannot put his wooC
piles, wagons, or pig pens there; ant
il he does, and the traveller runs into
them in the night and is injured
he would not only be liable for tn,
private damages sustained Linsley vs.
Bushnell. Is Conn. 225) but he may b,
indicted for obStructing a public way
From this brief review, il will be seer
that the law is strongly against turning
the highway into COW pasture or f;
barn-yard. -Hdigh IN Anerican 1gri
| cuitHriSt.