Thomas County cat. [volume] (Colby, Kan.) 1885-1891, 1885-12-10
FENCES.
The Law Which Regulates Their Erection
and Conservation.

The Law Which Regulates Their Erection
and Conservation.
Though every thrifty farmer who is a
good calculator put most of his
fences in good order. so far as it could
be done in the more leisure periods OF
late autumn and early spring. after or
before active field work could be done.
some fences were so situated on wet or
frozen or snow-cOvered ground that
little could be done with them before
the thawing out of the soil. and almost
Ayery farmer has some new fencing to
he built now. or at least some old that
needs repairing. And the setting "i
posts and the stringing of wires fir
auently brings questions of fence law
into painful prominence. That farm
who has never had any fence dispute
with the owner of adjoining farms
nan consider himself exceptionally for
tunate.
BY the common law rule. every man
IS obliged to keep his cattle on his OWE
land. and if they stray lie is bound L"
pay all damages. This rule prevails IN
the old and long settled States of this
country. At the West about the only
States which follow this rule are Indi-
ana. Michigan and Minnesota. Tie
object of a fence. at common law. ~
existing in the aforementioned States.
is not to keep out the cattle of other
people. but to keep ones own in. The
contrary rule. that the man who cult
Yates his land must keep other peoples
cattle of. has been declared law in
Ohio. Colorado. California. Missouri.
Mississippi. Texas and most Western
States and Territories. Where this
latter rule prevails. the farmer who
owns cultivated field into which his
neighbors' cattle break through inn
proper fencing. not only can not re-
cover for the damage done to his crop.
but will further be held liable for
damage which the stock may suffer
from eating hirtful food. or from any
other of the hLrtful consequences.
In Pennsylv, MIA, Illinois and Iowa a
rule about midway between the tw'
above mcntiOnssl is made law. 1t h..>
been held in these States that it is ~
trcspass for stock TO 90 upon unfenc. =;
land. but if the cattle are injured VIII l..
upon such land the owner can not re-
Sver damage. although he can do 50
in the most ri the other Wc>tcim
States The reason of the law is laid
down in the decision of the case Of
<eeley VI. Peters. which WAS argued at
great length and dec'd ci by the >u-
preme Court of Illinois in 1S4S.
'liowcver we'll adapted the rule of the
nmmon law may be To a drn>ely por-
uistcd country like England" say tia.
court. '.it is surely but III adapted to :,
n~w countr, Ike ours. II this common
law rule prevails now. it must have
prevailed from the time Of the earliest
settlements in the State: and can it b..
supposed that when the early settler
n this country located upon the bor'l-
,vs OF our extensive prairies. they
brought with them and adapted AS aJ,-
piicable to their condition q rule al
Law requiring each one TO fence up h :
cattle: that they designed the millions
vt fertile acres stretched out befo,'
them to go ungrazed. except rs eac,r
purchaser from Government was alb,
to enclose his part with fencea THIS
State is unlike any of the Eastern States
in their early settlement. because. fire. u,
The scarcity of timber, it must be MAI.
years yet before extensive prairies ca n
be fenced. and their iuXuriant growth.
sufficient for thousands Of cattle. mus,
BE- suffered to rot and decay where i,
crows, unless the settlers upon the I
Borders are permitted to turn thei,
0ittle upon them" Such was the opin.
joaof the Supreme Court Of our State.