ANOMALIES OF FENCE LAW. 27 



We call for the repeal of a law whose " anomalies " give it a 

 career of " victorious villain^'," 



We call for the repeal of a law which oppresses at every turn, 

 and encuanbers every estate. 



We call for the enactment of a law which will shield the crops 

 and restrain the cattle. 



We call for a law which shall take. counsel of equity, speedy 

 and even-handed justice. 



We call for a law which shall speak the things it means, and 

 means what it speaketh. 



We call for a law which needs no " boiling down" to extract its 

 judicial essence, but which shall be simple, concise and eflScient, 

 and without perplexing ingenuities. 



To this end we would repeal existing laws relating to pounds, 

 impounding, actions of trespass, and equal shares of partition 

 fences — those between adjoining pastures excepted— and create 

 a new statute power, simple, direct, decisive, which could be 

 exercised with vigor and success, without any of the trammels of 

 the old law, or any of its technical fetters or judicial enigmas ; a 

 law with perils, which would not " delay its coming" until an 

 oflence had mossed over with age. It is this phraseology of the 

 R. S., c. 22, § 2, which is so mischievous in the matter of division 

 fences: "The occupants of lands enclosed with fences shall 

 maintain partition fences between their own and the adjoining 

 enclosures, in equal shares, while both parties continue to im- 

 prove them." Blot out the words "improve them," and add, 

 use them for pasturing, otherwise, in severally by the party so using, 

 and the thing is done. 



Again : Make it lawful for any person to seize and take into his 

 custody and possession any animal which may be running at 

 large or may be trespassing upon his premises, such beast to be 

 sold by a trial justice, and out of the proceeds thereof costs and 

 any and all fines and profits to be paid, unless the owner make 

 payment before the advertised time of sale. Such a law would 

 have the merit of brevity. It would not be a web of words, 

 requiring a lawyer to interpret. It would bar the perforating of 

 law terms to let offenders out. It would not be a " pudding- 

 stone", of anomalies like the present fence law, an epic of mean- 

 ingless fables, empty as the inarticulate wind. 



