Catoctin clarion. [volume] (Mechanicstown, Md.) 1871-1940, 1886-05-27

TREspAss LAW IN MARYLAND. The Cecil
Democrat recently gave the following which
must prove Of interest to farmers and land
owners generally:
zone of the most troublesome annoyanccs
and draw backs to good neighborhoods is the
practice of some farmers in permitting their
stock to run at large upon public roads, the
object being, generally, to enable them to
crop the grass growing upon the side of the
roads. If this was the only cause of com
plant in such cases, forbearancc would be
justifiable; but the greater evil is found i'll
the fact that fla gate is left open, whole
herd of cattle is found trespassing upon a
neighbours field or garden, frequently cndan-
gcring the loss of an entire crop, when not
| discovered in time to drive them out.
"The owner of the land along which a
road is established is along entitled to the
privilege Of cropping the grass thereon, and
consequently any one permitting his stock
to run at large for this purpose is a trcspass-
er. 1t is high time that this evil should be
corrected; and we copy the following de-
cision of one of our county courts to aid in
an effort to abatc this serious nuisance.
Judge Wickcs, in the Talbot County
Court, delivered the opinion of the Court
in the case of Price cs. Oliver, which arose
out of trespass Of divers cattle upon
Prices enclosure, and the decision is an inn
portant one to farmers in this State, as it
virtually enacts stock law where that law
does not already prevail. We give below
the main points of the decision, as reported
by the Talbot papers.
1.-THE Court held that the common law in
regard too trespassing cattle, etc, is in force
now in Maryland, and that the rule of law is
| that person is only bound to take care that
| his cattle do not wander from his own land
and trespass upon the land of others; that
fence is for the purpose Of keeping your own
stock ut home, and not to keep others stock
off and if any one is damaged by anothers
stock trespassing OH his land, whether fenced
or not, whether cleared Ian L. wood land or
marsh land, he can recover damages from
the owner of stock so trespassng.
THE Court also held that under the stat
ute law of Maryland (article 81, title "Es
trays and Trespassng Cattle,") person had
three remedies for the trespassing on his en-
closures by any cattle, horses, sheep, hogs or
any domestic animals.
81 He could take up the animals, and
within reasonable time thereafter go be-
fore ajustice Of the peace and make affidavit
that he took up the animal as an estray, and
publish SAID affidavit and Justices cert ificate,
etc. If he complies with the law, he can re-
cover all expenses incurred by the person
taking up the estray and keeping it, includ-
ing the cost of advertising. If any one
avais himself o: this remedy, he cannot re-
cover damages for the injury done.
q. Any person aggrieved by the tres
pass upon his enclosure of any cattle may
impound the same and have the damage sus
tanned by the trespass appraised by two dis
interested persons; and unlesss the damage
and reasonable compensation for feeding
the property impounded are paid, may, at
the expiration of ten days, sell the same at
public auction, by giving the notice requir-
ed by the statute. This remedy seems to
apply where the owner of the cattle is not
known.
80. Ifany cattle, &c, trespassing on the
enclosures of any person be distrained doing
damage, the owner of which IS known, if
the owner do not tender compensation for
the damage within five days after such dis
tress and notice given to him, then the par
ty taking up such cattle, etc, may, by COM
plying with the statute, have the property
sold and retain enough to pay him for the
damages he has sustained, and all charges
arising from such trespass.
Any man aggrieved by the trespass on his
property of any cattle, horses, hogs, etc, has
four complete reHedics Zone at common law