The Forest Republican. [volume] (Tionesta, Pa.) 1869-1952, 1891-03-25
MORE ABOUT THE FENCE LAW.

Capt. w. W. Barr, one of the oldest
members Of the Clarion county bar, writes
the following statement on the fence law,
upon the request of some of the farmers
of his section. 1t will be of interest to
most of our readers, and so we give it in
full
CLARION, PA, March II, 1891.
D. II. PARSONS, Esq,
Dear Sir;-You may %recoIIect, perhaps,
that during the sitting of the late Farmers
Institute, over which you presided, the
inquiry was made of me: What is the
present status of the present fence law in
Pennsylvania? and that I. then stated I
could not answer, for the reason that the
case of Stewart VS.. Benninger, from this
court, was then pending in the Supreme
Court of the State.
I then agreed with some of those present,
that when that case was determined, l
would prepare a statement of the matter
for publication.
The opinion of the Supreme Court was
handed down in January, and the case was
frequently noticed in the newspapers, but
I did not get possession of a printed copy
until yesterday.
BY the common law no fences are re-
quired, only such as are needed to restrain
stock from running at large.
Numerous Acts of Assembly have been
passed on the subject of fences. The first
was the Act of 100, which required "all
corn-felds and grounds kept for enclos-
ures to be well fenced" Parts of this Act
were repealed many years since, but the
part requiring fences to be maintained. was
in force until the 4th day of April, 1889,
when it was repealed.
The act of 1884, passed for Northum-
berland and other counties, when these
counties composed the large part of the
rural portion of the State prescribed, more
particularly the. kind of fence required,
and provided for the appointment of view
ers. rs the territory comprising Clarion
county was in Northumberland county
from 1855 to 1895, when it became part OF
Lycomiug county, and this law was prob
ably in force here, but the Supreme Court
has set this matter to rest, by holding, in
the case of Stewart VS.. Benninger, that the
Act of 1862 repealed the Act of 1854, by it's
title, without mentioning the county of
Northumberland.
There is, therefore, no law in this State
requiring fences except the common law,
which requires every farmer to make such
enclosures as will secure his own domes-
tic animals.
The law of division fences is the same
as heretofore-each adjoining owner of
improved land when they desire to use it,
are required to keep up half the division
fence.
The Act of l705, relating to hogs, is still
in force, and it is unlawful to permit them
to run at large without rings and yokes,
and when so permitted, they may be
killed or impounded, and one-half their
value forfeited.
There seems to be no law prohibiting
horses, cattle and sheep from running at
large, while it may be a trespass for cattle
to rove and pasture on unenclosed wood
land, yet it has been held that no action
can be maintained for the reason that the
damages are unappreciable.
l believe, since the repeal of all the
other fence laws, thai the common law is
in full force, and that each farmer must
secure his own stock, or be subject to pay
all damages they may do to their neigh
boris field.
This is a short summary of the fence
law as it stands to-day, and as this is a
matter of interest 10 the farmer generally,
particularly at this time of year, 1 have
taken the liberty of sending this to the
newspapers before sending it to YOU.
Yours truly,
W. w RAup