CATTLE-STRAYING ON RAILWAY LINES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLVI, Issue 14110, 12 July 1909, Page 8

CATTLE-STRAYING ON RAILWAY LINES.

A Daniel come to judgment! Yea. a. Daniel! 0 wise judge, how do I honour tueel Sir!—Tho decision of Portia was not more, joyfully received in the \ cnetidn Court than will tho statement made by Mr. R. Mc Ewan, J.P., be received by tho unfortunate farmers who have the ill-fortu'io to have settled 011 land near a railway line. Tho occasion of Mr. ■ McEwan's pronouncement was when recording a conviction, and ordering defendant to pay frosts only, on a charge of having allowed his horse (which was run over and killed by the express) to stray on the railway lino near Huutly. -■ He is reported in the Herald of the 9th inst. to have said that " he would convict no person who appeared before him in future on a similar charge. He recognised tho serious disaster that might ensue if an express were derailed by colliding with horses or cattle wandering 011 the line, so that in the interests of the safety -of tho travelling public it was full time the railway authorities began to take steps to remove the possibility of such a calamity by fencing in the line. The absence of adequate fences was a menace to public safety, and - f%erious source of loss to settlers and others, who, despite the precautions taken bv them, often lost stock in this way." That wo have a magistrate who will thus maintain the law against. Government officialism is a saving sign of grace for this much over-legislated Dominion. . The position of the settler in the Waikato had be com o almost intolerable. Government would not maintain it. serviceable fenco along each side of their railway, and although farmers did their-best. to confine their stock, yet, at times, they would break bounds, and be destroyed by a passing train. Many farmors have sustained serious loss in this way, and instead of being compensated have been prosecuted by Government, as if the fault lay with them. When farmers, after suffering such loss, have aopealcd to Government officials to fence the line, they have been J old to do it themselves, and in one instance known to the writer, where sercval farmers applied for permission to use the " refuse" old sleepers lying 011 their land along the line for this purpose, surly permission was given, subject to conditions that, a {not less than) five-wire fence must be erected, to the satisfaction and approval of the officials m charge. This is a matter which the Farmors' Union should have had cleared up long agoThe old English law was that persons were not obliged to fcncc their land, but they were liable to prosecution for trespass when their stock strayed on to their neighbours land: and, as with closer settlement prosecutions became frequent, people realised it would be more economical to fence m thenstock. , ' . . , , ' This is the law the ciiligntencd and progressive Government of New Zealand have hitherto enforced and protected themselves under; they have, in fact, been imposing upon the ignorance and credulity of the farmers. , , . A little more progress has boon made m the slcepv Old Country, where the law has been nio'cfified to suit modern requirements, and Government insists that all railway lines shall be protected . from trespass by fences so strong and serviceable that neither sheep nor cattle can break through; and, ■where country roads cross 1 railways, that linesmen shall bo constantly in attendance to protect the travelling public against accidents. But in the Old Country all railway linos are private property, therefore, the Government- is virtuous there. C. A. Young.