Correspondence.

Nelson Examiner and New Zealand Chronicle, Volume XXVIII, Issue 12, 10 February 1869, Page 3

Correspondence.

CATTLE TRESPASS. To the Editor of the 'Nelson Examiner.' Sir — Misapprehension is so common on this subject, that a few observations on it may be acceptable to your readers. The mistake to which I am alluding is, that recent legislation has imposed on the owners of cattle some obligation which did not previously nttach to them, and has exonerated the owners of fenced land from the necessity of having sufficient fences to keep out the ordinary trespass of cattle. Our colonial legislation has followed more closely than is generally imagined, the common and other laws of England. It may elucidate the subject to see what that law has been. Generally speaking, the whole lands of England were considered as vested in the Crown, and were granted out in Manors and Lordships ; and by the Lords of Manors were subgranted to freehold and copyhold tenants. The holdings thus acquired were for the most part fenced and formed the fenced lands of the country ; as to these fenced lands the common law of England (as declared by the decisions of the higher tribunals) did not allow any redress for the trespass of cattle if it could be shown that the trespass occurred from a defective fence of the party aggrieved. Where the defective fence divided lands where the cattle were confined, from the land on which they trespassed, it was a fence which the owner of the cattle was bound to maintain, and the owner of the cattle was held liable for damages ; for the trespass occurred from his own neglect to keep a proper fence and the cattle might bo impounded for recovering the damages. So much for fenced land. As to nnfenced lands, which were for the most part the commons or forests of tho Lords of the Manors, no one had any right to impound but the lord or his bailiff. The freehold or copyhold tenants of the manor had usually certain rights of pasturage, but, subject to such rights, the lord might impound and obtain compensation for trespass. Our colonial legislation has followed this as closely as circumstances required, by giving the owners of land (having a sufficient fence) a summary remedy for trespass, and a right to impound. Since this, our provincial legislation has given to the owners of un fenced, as well as fenced lands, a definite right to recover certain small fixed sums for eacli head of cattle trespassing, and an allowance per mile for driving such cattle either to the public pound or to their owner's homestead ; but this right only exists where the landowner has published a notice (required by the Act) four times, once in each successive week, in some public paper in the province. Again, for the protection of roads, a provision is made imposing a penalty on the owners of cattle found straying on any public road running between fenced lands (and such cattle may be driven to the pound) ; but where a road runs over lands which are not fenced, there is no penalty. In a popular letter as this is intended to be, it would be out of place to quote authorities, but I believe I have correctly stated the effect of the laws (on this head) under which we live, so far as is consistent with requisite brevity. Yours., &c, Lex.