The Middleburgh post. [volume] (Middleburgh, Snyder Co., Pa.) 1883-1916, 1893-04-13
Duties Of Farmers in Regard
to Fences.
Written for the Posr

seems from the Posi- of the Both of
March, 1892 that there are still some
controversies about it, aud there.
fore we propose to give our views on
it.
On the 9TH day of April 1889. the
only general law that was on our
statute books, which required the
owner of land to make fences to pre-.
vent other peoples horses, cattle.
sheep and hogs from trcspassing up
on their land was the old act of as
sembly of 1900, which Of late has be.
cone quite familiar with our people.
This old act of 1900 was repealed by
the legislature of Pennsylvania on
the 4th day of April, 1899.
After this old act was repealed
there was no law that required the
owner ofland to put up and main
tain fences to keep other peoples
horses, cattle, sheep and hogs from
trespassing on his land, and If any
persons horses, cattle, sheep and
hogs or any other animals of anoth.
or trespasses upon n mans land, the
owner Of the land can bring an ac-
ton OF trespass against the owner
Of such animals and recover dam.
ages for the trespass. This is un.
doubtedly the law as it stands to-
day.
There was, however, an act of as
sembly passed on the llth day Of
March, 1912, (see u. l.. 1872 page G2l
which regulated the keeping up and
maintaining "A partition or line fence
between the owners of two adioin-
ing tracts of land. but this effected
no one except the adjoining land
owners. Under this act of assemb-
1sr. adioininy owner -, :, land was
not compelled to join In division
or line fence. if be did not want to,
so that 10 was entirely optional with
him to JON or not as he liked. This
is clearly decided in the case of
Dysart, W. Leeds, Barr lS9. II,
however, adjoining land owners had
"a division or line fence between
them and maintained it, yet, Mt any
time, if one or the other desired 10
abandon that line fence he could DO
SO. Burnside j. says in delivering
the opinion of the Supreme court
that Painter chooses TO abandon
the old partition fence aud build
new one within his own boundry on
his own land This he had right
10 do any otherconstructiOu would
be Inconsistent with the free enjoy
ment of property Painter, vs.
Reese, , Barr l2s. II the one aban-
dons the old line fence he is not
bound after that TO assist in main
tanning it, Painter, ys. Reese, :
Barr l26 Rohrer, vs.. Rohrer &
Harris 367 Smith, vs.. Johnson 2G
Z. + Smith 1871, 1856
When this act of assembly of 1872
was passed, and these desicions
made by the Supreme court the old
act of 100 had not then been repeal
ed, aud landowner was bound TO
make fences TO prevent other peo-
pie ; animals from trespassing upon
their land and therefore the Judges
IN those cases cited say they could
abandon the old fence aud make a
new one on their own land to pre-
vent other peoples animals from
trespassing on their land. But now
this is not SO, for there is no law
since the repeal of the act of 1900, to
force landowner TO make fence.
All that an adjoining landowner
need now do is 10 tell his adjoiner
that he abaDdOns the old line fence
and that he viii not assist any furth-
en- IN maintaining it, and that then
ends the fence matter between them.
Then it becomes their duty as we'll
as every one else TO take care OF
their horses, cattle, sheep, hogs and
other animals and prevent them
from trespassing upon other peoples
land, and if they fail to do this, tho
landowner, fence or no fence, can
bring an action of trespass against
the owner of the animals and mako
them pay damages. The day has
gone By, in this state, to compel m
owner of land TO go to the expense
of making fences to prevent other
peoples animals from doing thom
damage. 1t is a great wonder that