The Iola register. [volume] (Iola, Allen County, Kansas) 1875-1902, 1885-05-29
FENCES.
The Law which Regulates Their Erection
md

ana COnserV8tfOns
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
every farmer has some new fencing to
be built now, or at least some old that
needs repairing. And the setting of
posts and the stringing of wires fire.
quently brings questions of fence law
into painful prominence. That farmer
who has never had any fence disputes
with the owner of adjoining farms
can consider himself exceptionally for
tunate.
By the common law rule, every man
is obliged to keep his cattle on his own
land, and if they stray he is bound to
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. The
object of fence. at common law, as
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 a cultivated field into which his
neighbors' cattle break through i'm
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 hurtful food, or from any
other of the hurtful consequences.
In Pennsylvania, Illinois and Iowa a
rule about midway between the two
above mentioned is made law. 1t has
been held in these States that it is not
trespass for stock to go upon unfenced
land. but if the cattle are injured while
upon such land. the owner can not re-
cover damage, although he can do so
in the most Of the other Western
States. The reason of the law is laid
down in the decision of the case of
Secley VS.. Peters, which was argued at
great length and decided by the SUI
preme Court of Illinois in 1S48.
However well adapted the rule of the
common law may be to a densely pop
ulated country like England" say the
court, sit is surely but i'll adapted to a
new country like ours. If this common
law rule prevails now, it must have
prevailed from the time of the earliest
settlements in the State; and can it be
supposed that when the early settlers
of this country located upon the bord-
ers of our extensive prairies, they
brought with them and adapted as ap-
plicable to their condition a rule of
law requiring each one to fence up his
cattle; that they designed the millions
of fertile acres stretched out before
them to go ungrazed, except as each
purchaser from Government was able
to enclose his part with fence? This
State is unlike any of the Eastern States
in their early settlement, because, frem
the scarcity of timber, it must be many
years yet before extensive prairies can
be fenced, and their luxuriant growth,
sufficient for thousands of cattle, must
be suffered to rot and decay where it
grows. unless the settlers upon their
borders are permitted to turn their
cattle upon them" Such was the opin-
ion of tho Supramo Court nf o,,r Stata
E. S. Judd, tn Prairie Farmer.