The Baltimore County union. [volume] (Towsontown, Md.) 1865-1909, 1903-06-27
Correspondence Baltimore County Union.
TRESPASS BY DOMESTIC ANIMALS.
owINas, MILLS, BALrIMoRE CouSTY,

OwISos' MILLS, BALTIMORE COUNTY
June %, 1908.
ACessrs Esditors The recent action of the
Railroad authorities IN cu.ulns
down the poles of the Western Union Ielegrap 3ii
Company and destroying 10 600 miles OF wire VIII
doubtless give rise to some nice polnts " iem
and fine distinctions concerning the rlghUs Vi
trespasser on the lands of another. -
When we come to consider the quetshel e roa =.
ter Is somewhat free of difficulties. Inc gen
eral rule has been thus stated by leaolng May
land writer on the subject, tine owner ~ oa1.iD
and other domestic animals must keep tneM on
his own land at his peril, and must Keep .no n4
off the land of others, whether fenceo OF ! no.,
and he is responsible for their trespass' a. ~
caused by his negligence in keeping them OF
mott This is the law in Maryland TO-DAY. an4
has been the law in England for centuries. ~
Is founded on the sound principle OF punnc
policv that in densely populated communities,
snch az our own. where each mans possessions
are clearly Defined cattle should not pc allow s
owner Of the cattle to fence them IN, ana noe
upon some one else to fence them out. linus Il
Al is the owner of land and b the owner OF cas-
file there ia no obligation resting upon 10
erect a fence and should BIS cattle Wanoef onto
the unenclosed land of A he must compensate
him for the damage done ~ In lem btwaa f,rst
laid down by our Court of Appeals as the law IN
1858. The tracks of the Baltimore ana ONO
Railroad adjoined the pasture held OF Mr.. Lam
horn in Howard county. There was no renee
Separating the field from the tracks, nevertne-
less Mr.. Lamborn turned ms valuaDie COY ~ lmoo
run down and killed. 1t appeared that wnen
first seen by the engineer the animal was ABOUT
one hundred yards from tne tracK. Du5 H.
of the engine. MIR. Lamborn claimed tnau tne
engineer should have stopped his train 1mmedl-
ately upon seeing the horse. he losI MS case,
and if the rule held good in those days, when
TWENTY-FIVE miles an hour was considered frlgnt-
full speed for railroad train TO make, now
broadly present day jury would smile were
Mr. Iamborn to appear and contend that q
Royal Blue flyer should slow up or stop SIMPLY
because his horse, turned loose into an unIenceo
field. had wandered near the track.
But custom often makes law, and SO IL nap,
.se.saa be GSa9t DTS
ing land, it was deemed best to allow cattle tc
roam at large; and in some of the western
States today the law is the very reverse of ours
and there the owner of land must fence 1t In
and if he fails to do so his neighbours cattle are
at perfect liberty to roam wheresoever they
please.
In Baltimore county, however, the general
rule is subject to two exceptions
First-When cattle are being driven along 9
public highway and break into adjoining land
the owner of such cattle is not liable for the
use Of highway is lawful. Which is doubtless
pleasing logic to the owner of the cattle. but
very poor comfort for the man whose %hea
course if the driver of the cattle was negligent
in his care of them the case would be altered
But it is not lawful to pasture cattle on the
highway, for here such use of 1t was not con
Secondly an act of the Legislature, passed
more county adjoin, each must make and main
tain one-half of the whole line of fence between
them, and should either fail to SO make his pro
portion of the fence, or to keep it in repair, be
must bear the loss If the others cattle ge
through into his land. In some of the counties
this law is not in effect, and there the genera
rule applies that even between neighbors there
is no obligation, except upon the owner of cat
tie, to erect a division fence.
Such was the painful experience of Mr.. Rich
ardson, from the golden strands of st. Mary g
as early as 1851 and for which he paid severa
hundred dollars in court costs and lawyers fees
1t appears that Mr.. Richardson owned fell
fronting on the bay, while Mr.. Miburn's fielt
adjoined it on the rear, with fence between
Mr. Milburn one day notified Mr.. Richardson
that he intended to tear down the fence ii
order to drive around to the bay. He kept hi
word, moved the fence and for one month, while
the two neighbors wrangled, stray cattle, sheel
and damaged it considerably. Unfortunatei.
Mr.. Richardson lost his case through techni
| cality of law, but the court then laid down tn
against an adjoining neighbour but that sucl
neighbor must keep his cattle upon his owl
land, and if they cross the line their owner i
! liable for the damage done by them.
But while it is true that everyone is thu
| obliged to keep his stock within an enclosure
and that II they escape upon the land o
| another, whether enclosed or not and treat
down the grass or destroy the grain, the owne
| is liable for such damage, yet the courts hav
made very wide distinction where the damage
| done was not the direct and immediate result o
their breaking out. Thus, if A is the owner o
| cattle, and he turns them into pasture fell
! fenced and in good repair, then should his bull
break out and gore BIS bull in an adjoining fell
A would not be liable, because the injury dom
| was not the direct result of their breaking out
| But should AS cattle have escaped by reason o
| the bad condition of AS fence, he would thel
| become liable for the loss of BIS bull, becaus
| the resulting damage was caused by his owl
neglect. An English judge recently held tina
| where AS COW escaped upon BIS land through
| fence which b was bound to keep in repair, AM
while there ate the leaves of yew tree, in con
| A for the loss of the COW. In all such cases tn
| liability attaches to b because the injury wa
the result of his negligence.
most interesting case upon this point aros
in Anne Arundf9hhoee' pt.'.s 1883; The facts ar
~ - dad Company az Il case ~ ~
| Annapolis Junction and Annapolis. Proftin
! by Mr.. Lamborn's experience, he erected fenc
but allowed it to get in bad repair, with the re
| suit that one day his OK broke through and dis
puted the right of way with one of the company
trains. What became of the OK the case doesn'
| say, but the engine was thrown off the trac]
| and wrecked and the entire train derailed. 70
| which the railroad company sued Mr. Baldwin
! He admitted that he had been careless in keen
ing the fence, and it was therefore held that a
| the accident resulted from his negligence h
should be held liable for the consequent damage
But while it is thus well settled that to holt
the owner of a domestic animal liable for in
direct injuries inflicted by it you must prov,
that such injuries were the result of his negli
gence, nevertheless; where the animal is of
fractions or vicious disposition. accustomed Il
bite or attack mankind, and the owner know
that 1T has such disposition, then the mere keep
ing of the animal, after such knowledge make,
it incumbent upon the owner to see that nc
damage is done by it.
WATSON E. SHERWOOD.