Cattle Trespass Ordinance.

Daily Southern Cross, Volume I, Issue 29, 4 November 1843, Page 2

Cattle Trespass Ordinance.

Several persons appear to labour under a mistake regarding the nature and objects of this act. And many are disposed to think that it is altogether useless if not injurious in its effects.—lt may be defective, but it is in itself a useful and in many respects an important act, in as much as it enables parties to recover by a summary process iu certain cases damages for injury sustained by the trespass of cattle -without the expence of a civil action. We are aware that its meaning is misapprehended by persons who imagine that it debars from a civil action, and that if a person is not in condition to recover damages under this act, he has no other recourse. The act is only intended for the benefit of those who incur the expence of substantially fencing their lands. Such persons can summarily recover damages under it; but those whose lands are not at all fenced, are not by any means prevented by this ordinance from recovering by civil pro* cess damages for injuries sustained through the trespass of cattle. It is not competent for any local legislature to form any enactment of such a tendency, nor can the cattle trespass act have ever been meant to deprive persons from any benefit conferred by the common law. We have been induced to make these remarks in consequence of a case which was on

Wednesday .last brought before the PoljJ Court,between Major Bunbury and Capt. p or | ter. The case was not entertained, because M Major himself acknowledged that the fen<J was not exactly an efficient or substantia!! one. But although the sitting magistrate! may not have been able to entertain ttl case or summarily award damages, becauJ the fence was not a substantial fence, accord! ing to the meaning of the ordinance, it dotl not at all follow that Captain Porter or am| person whose cattle may injure the proper! | of another may not be made to pay for sucl injury, provided the same could be proved,! It would be an extreme hardship if ever! person buying land should be obliged to fenjl that land, and it would be equally hard thai the crops or other property of such persoj might ba injured by the cattle of other! without any recourse. Such is not the cajj And we are anxious that all th© settled should be aware of this fact. A person ha J ing a good fence can recover summarily, I J a person without a fence at all can recovel by civil action, and no one is bound to fenJf his land. 1