The Cambria freeman. [volume] (Ebensburg, Pa.) 1867-1938, 1896-05-22

Secretary Edge of the state board of ag-
riculture, has prepared the following ex-
position of the fence law:
The fact is that the repeal of the general
law of 100 and 17s4 has completely re-
versed things so far as outside or road
fences are concerned. Under these acts
the owner was required to protect il
against stock passing along the road ,ol
suffer damages. Since the repeal of these
laws it has become the duty of the owners
of live stock on the public roads to prevent
them from tresSpassing, and if tresspasses
take place the owners of the stock is per
Sonally responsible to the owner of the land
for any damages done TO crops or property
Under the old law the crops had to be
fenced to protect them from stock, and
now the stock must be restrained and the
land owner is not compelled to maintain
fences unless he so chooses
The consideration of the fence question
usually brings up other questions closely
related 10 1t, and among them the right oi
the public to fruit, grass, etc. The rig ht to
this class of property is clearly vested in
the owner of the land and the public have
no rights to il whatever. 1t Is just as
much the property of the land owner as If
II was on the inside of good fence, and
the public have no right to in any manner
disturb 1t. If trees, grasses or other prop
erty in any manner interferes with public
travel the road supervisors have the right
to remove it, for nothing prejudical to the
public right of unimpeded travel can be
allowed To remain, but the only judges of
this are the road commissioners. So nice
is this distinction that is case of record
In court man whose children pass along a
public road on their way to school obtained
the grass so it might not wet his children S
clothing, but after cutting it he hauled the
grass home and fed it to his horse. The
owner of the land adjacent to the road
brought suit and recovered damages to the
value of the grass.
The land upon which a public road is
located is given TO the public for the right
OF way or passage over it and the public
has no right to it. man may not stop on
the public road and impede travel, for by
so doing he interferes with the rights of
the public. He cannot haul away earth,
sand, stones or other material, for they are
as much the property of the land owner,
subject of course to the reserved rights of
the road supervisors, as similar material
within the fences of the farm. The owner
of the land gave merely the right of pas
sage over the land, and if for any cause the
road is discontinued the land reverts to
him and again becomes a portion OF his
farm.
The right of the supervisors is auto
cratic They may for the purpose OF re-
pairing roads, building bridges, etc, cut
down trees, remove earth or stone. ami the
owner of the land has no redress unless
the materials are taken off his farm
and not within the limits of the road. If
taken frOm his farm he is of course entitled
to payment. but he cannot prevent their
removal If the supervisors see fit 10 insist.
Under the present condition of our gem
eral fence law the lines which bound the
rights of any public travel are as much
protection to the farm owner and his stock
as the best fence which he can build, and
any live stock passing this line are tres
passers and liable for all damages done to
crops or other farm property.
In recent address before the state board
of agriculture, Mr.. Stranahan clearly inti
mated that no matter how the animal got
upon the public road their owner was re-
sponSible, and if they broke out and got
into the road the owner was just "a much
responsible as if he was driving them along
the road at the time the damage was in
flicted.
In referring to the repeal of these laws
Mr.. Stranahan spoke as follows: These
judges have held that we have no fence
law as TO the enclosure OF mans land,
and that every man has to fence in his own
cattle, and If he does not and they get out
and do damage to his neighbor, he must
respond in damages.