The Lake Charles echo. [volume] (Lake Charles, Parish of Calcasieu, La.) 1876-1898, 1885-10-24
FENCES.


E. s. Judd, in Prairie Farmer.
Though every thrifty farmer who is
"good calculator" put most Of his
fences in good order, SO far as It could
be done in tho 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 ont 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 fre-
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
tnnate.
BY the common law rule, every man
is obliged to keep his cattle on his
own land, and if they stray he 10 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
Indiana, 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 10 keep ones own
in. The contrary rule, that the man
who cultivates his land must keep
other peoples cattle off, has been de-
cIared law in Ohio, Colorado, Cali
fornia, Missouri, Mississippi, Texas
and most Western States and Terri
tories. Where this latter rule pre-
walls, the farmer who owns cultivated
field into which his neighbors' cattle
break through improper fencing, not
only cannot recover for the damage
done to his crop, but will further be
held liable for damage which the stock
may suffer from eating hurtfnl food,
or from any other of the hurtful con-
sequences.
In Pennsylvania, Illinois and Iowa
rule about midway between the two
above mentined is made law. IT has
been held in these States that II is not
tresspass for stock to 60 upon I'M
fenced land, but il the cattle are in
jured while upon such land, the owner
cannot recover 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 Seeley VS.. Peters, which was
argued at great length and decided by
the Supreme Court of Illinois in ls4s.
"However we'll adapted the rule of the
common law may be to densely pop
ulated country like England" say the
court, "it is surely but III adapted to
new country like ours, If this com
mon law. rule prevails now, it must
have prevailed from the time OF the
earliest settlements in tho State; and
can it be supposed that when the carly
settlers of this country located upon
the borders of our extensive prairies,
they brought with them and adapted
as applicable to their condition rule
of law requiring each one TO fence mp
his cattle; that they designed the mill
lions of fertile acres stretched out be-
fore them to go ungrazed, except as
each purchaser from Government was
able to enclose his part with fence7
This State is unlike any OF the East
ern States in their early settlement,
because, from the scarcity of timber,
it must be many years yet before ex,
tensiye prairies can be fenced, and
their luxuriant growth, sufficient for
thousands of cattle, must be suffered
to rot and decay where il grows, unless
the settlers upon their borders are
permitted to turn their cattle upon
them" Such was the opinion Of the
Supreme Court of our State.