The Columbian. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1910, 1890-08-01

The following article from the Danville
inteligencer fully explains the present status
of the fence law, and 1t is reproduced here
for the information Of the public.

Ihe Following article from the Danvllle
Intclhigencer fully explains the present status
of the fence law, and 1t is reproduced here
for the information Of the public.
DAsvuLE, Pa, July 18th, 1890.
Mr.. Editor-Is there not a law to pre-
vent cattle from breaking into your pre-
misses and destroying property A neigh
Dor OF mine has mischievons COW that Is
continually breaking into gardens and de-
stroying the vegetables and flowers growing
therein. Is the loser not entitled TO redress
and damages2 III. l..
In reply to the above enquiry we will
state that under the old Fence Law, passed
in the year 1907, it was provided "That all
corn fields and grounds kept for Enclosures,
within the said province and counties an
nexed, shall be we'll fenced, with fence at
least five feet high, Of sufficient rail or logs,
and whosoever not having their grounds
| enclosed with such sufficient fence az afore-
| said, shall hurt, kill or do damage to any
horse, sheep, hog, or goats of any other
! persons, in driving them out from said
ground, shall be made liable to make good
| all damages sustained thereby to the owner
| of the said cattle. And In the same act is
provided: "But II any horse, kline, sheep
goats, or any kind of cattle shall break in
to any mans inclosure, the fence being OF
the aforesaid height and efficiency, and by
the view of two persons for that purpose
appointed by the county court found and
approved to be such, then the owner of
| such cattle shall be liable to make good all
damages to the owner Of the enclosure, for
the first offense single damages only, and
ever after double the damage sustained"
etc.
Under the act quoted, as can be seen,
any owner of property who had it properly
fenced could secure damages, thro' cattle
breaking into his enclosure. But the
Legislature, in its wisdom or rather want
of wisdom, at the last session repealed
this law, while at the same time it failed to
pass law prohibiting cattle from running
at large on the highway.
From what we can learn, all cattle run
ming at large can be taken up and disposed
Of as ''Estrays," and enquirer would do
well to have that "mischievous COW" i'm
pounded under the estray law, or he might
JOIN with his annoyed neighbor in sending
in petition to councils praying that body
to enact an ordinance prohibiting all cattle,
horses, &C., from running at large in the
borough.
The repeal of the fence law leaves the
farmer without redress against the trespass
of cattle on his lands from the public road,
unless he takes the invading cattle up and
impounds them. Under the common law
person or persons can drive cattle on any
public road, and yet, now that the fence
Jaw is repealed, and said cattle should
break into or enter any field on line of said
road and destroy property, we doubt if the
owner of the land 30 trespassed on could
recover damages for said trespass, II in
law it could be denominated trespass.
That the repeal of the fence law was un-
called for seems to be pretty well establish
ed, that it has given offeuse to large por-
tion Of the farming community is conceded
1t is no light thing to repeal old establish
ed laws, so general in their application,
without full aud general expressed as
sent by the parties most affected by such
action. The repeal was not called for by
petition, or at least by very small num-
Der. We judge that tho repeal was
brought about in this wav: In some OF
the lower counties of the State, owners of
cattle very seldom allow them to run at
large, and anxious to get rid of the expense
of fencing, the member Of the egislature
from such locality introduced a bill to re =
peal the fence law, which affects the
whole State and he has got other easy
going members, who failed to see its far
reaching effects, to lend him hand to ef.
feet its repeal To say the least it is a
loose way Of leglslatlng.