Sartod "Wire Fences

Bruce Herald, Volume XXIV, Issue 2497, 28 July 1893, Page 3

Sartod "Wire Fences

_c—e — An interesting account of an action to recover for damages sustained to persons and clothing through contact with a barbed wire fence, io reported in the * Field ' of June 3rd, The fence waa erected between a field and a public footpath, and the plaintiff sustained damage by having hie coat and mackintosh torn while his wife's hand was hurt by the barbs and har ureaa torn. The owner of the fence docifned to recognise the claim for damige made upon him, and then the plaint' ff went into the Birkenhead Coanty Court for redress, and obtained a verdict with 44s damages and costs. Against this the defendant appealed, and the appeal was heard in the Divisional Court of Qaeen's Bench o imposed of Mr Justice Matthew and Mr Justice Wright. After hearing argumen's of counsel on both sides, they dismissed the appeal. Ttiey pointed out that, according to exioting authorities, an occupier of land may not leave structures or excavations in contiguity to a highway to the danger of tho public If he dors so, he in liable for damagea which the public may matain by reason of the nuisance created. Some such nuisances are of themselves specially inhibi'ed by statute, and may be the subject of prosecutions even before any damage has been done by them; c </., if an unfenced pit be left exposed in tho vicinity of a highway, oven though a paaaer-by must be trespassing bef >re he oan reaoh the pit to fall down it. Other actfonß may oonatitute a misance, and yet banot specially iuhibited by Btatute ; but if they occur, he who perpetrates them beoomes. liable for any injury which the passer by may sustain by reason of them. Commenting upon tho ca-e, the ' Field ' emphatically pronounces against barbed wire as a nuisance, and regrets tint the new Act that had ja.it passed tho House of Commons dealing with auoh fencea had not become law earlier. That measure, as the ' Field ' puts it, •• ia calculated to simplify matters by eor.bling the local authority to intervene generally on bjhalf of the public, and bo to save, on the one hand, a series of potty iv juries too small for iadividual actions, and on the other hand to obviate the noceasUy for briogiDg a series of actions for more subtintiul injuries by nipping tha nuisance in tho bud." Wo take this opportunity of introducing the subject for wo observe there ara many barbed wire fenoes iv and about Milton, against which paseora by absolutely bruah, if not very cartful. And the ownor3 of auch fenoea are liable for dam .ges ; upon that point the law as laid down is very oloar. There is a New Zealand statute— Tho Fenc-i'-g Act, 1881, Amendment Act, 1888 — empowering Borough Councils and Town Boards to prohibit the erection of barbed wire within their districts, and we think it would be well if the prohibition was given effect to, at least in aonneation with main thoroughfares.,