110 



STATE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 



Counties 

 excepted. 



Constitu- 

 tionality. 



SEC. 6. None of the provisions of the act shall apply to 

 the counties of Del Norte, Lassen, Modoc, Shasta, Siskiyou or 

 Trinity.* 



SEC. 7. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase 

 of this act is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, such 

 decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions 

 of this act. The legislature hereby declares that it would have 

 passed this act, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause 

 and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or 

 more other sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases 

 be declared unconstitutional. 



DOMESTIC ANIMALS SAVED FROM DROWNING 

 OR STARVATION. 



For provisions governing duties and rights of persons saving 

 a domestic animal from drowning or starvation see Civil Code, 

 1864-1872. 



Trespassing 



declared 



unlawful. 



Recovery 

 of damages. 



TRESPASS OF ANIMALS. 



An act concerning trespassing of animals upon private lands 

 in certain counties in the State of California^ 



(Approved March 7, 1878. Amendments approved May 16, 1919. 

 Stats. 1877-8, p. 176; 1919, p. 524.) 



SECTION 1. It is unlawful for any animal, the property of 

 any person, to enter upon any land owned by or lawfully in the 

 possession of any person other than the owner of such animal. 



SEC. 2. The owner of, or person who is in the lawful pos- 

 session of, any land trespassed upon, in violation of this act, is 

 entitled to recover, by action in a court of competent jurisdic- 



*See note to section 10 of the estray law of 1901, page 108 hereof. 



t "The act of March 7, 1878 (Stats. 1877-1878, p. 176), 'concerning tres- 

 passing animals upon private lands in certain counties," etc., does not 

 violate section 2, of article I, of the constitution ; nor is it unconstitutional 

 because it gives an attachment for a trespass, without an affidavit, nor 

 because it subjects trespassing animals to attachment which are exempt 

 from execution under the general laws." 



Wigmore vs. Buell } 122 Cal. 144. 



"At the common law, every man was bound to keep his beasts within 

 his own close on penalty of answering in damages for injuries resulting 

 from their being permitted to range or run at large. 



"This rule of the common law was abrogated by the Legislature of 

 this state in 1850 (Stats. 1850, pp. 131 and 214), but in 1863 (Stats. 1863, 

 p 581; amended, Stats. 1871 and 1872, p. 580) the common law rule was 

 restored as to Santa Clara County, and in 1878 (Stats. 1877-1878, p. 176), 

 it was revived in several other counties including Colusa. 



"With respect to Santa Clara County and the several counties including 

 Colusa mentioned in the Statutes of 1877-1878, the common law rule upon 

 the subject of trespassing animals still prevails in its entirety. It was 

 not abrogated by the estray law of 1901 (Stats. 1901, p. 603), nor by the 

 general law of 1907 (Stats. 1907, p. 999) restoring in part the common 

 law rule. 



"Therefore, an action for damages for trespass by cattle, can be main- 

 tained in certain counties in which the common law was revived by the act 

 of 1878 (Stats. 1877-1878, p. 176) irrespective of whether or not the land 

 trespassed upon was enclosed or whether or not it was planted to crops 

 or fruits." 



Blevins vs. Mullally, 22 Cal. App. 519. 



See, also. 



HicTcs vs. Butterworth, 30 Cal. App. 562 ; Montezuma Imp. Co. vs. 

 Summerly, 28 Cal. App. Dec. 418. 



