OWNERSHIP OF ANIMALS 265 



simply cross the land of another it is a trespass."^ 

 It is a general rule that whoever may be in pos- 

 session or control of animals is liable for their 

 trespass, whether his possession be that of owner, 

 hirer, agister, or bailee of any kind. But if an 

 owner entrust his animals to an incompetent 

 agister, he may be held liable on that account.^^ 



213. Barbed Wire Fences. It must be remem- 

 bered in reading decisions relative to barbed wire 

 fences that they are of relatively recent use only. 

 Secondly, there is a difference between a fence 

 constructed of a few strands of the barbed wire, 

 and one which carries with it a sufficient body to 

 attract attention, such as a rail, or several strands 

 together, at the top. One has no right to erect a 

 barbed wire fence along a public highway in such 

 a manner as to make probable injury to either per- 

 sons or animals properly upon the highway.^^ But 

 the owner of the fence may not be held liable for 

 injury to animals illegally roaming at large,^^ nor 

 where the injury was due to the contributory neg- 

 ligence of the owner of the animal, as where a man 

 exercising a horse gave him so much rope that the 

 animal ran against the barbed wire fence.^^ In a 

 Canadian case it was even held that the owner of 

 the fence, which had no rail to give warning, was 



31 Sturtevant v. Merrill, 33 Sisk v. Crump, 112 Ind. 504; 



Me. 62. Foster v. Swope, 41 Mo. App. 



52 Ward V. Brown, 64 111. 137. 



307 ; R'osswell v. Cottom, 31 Pa. b* Galveston Land & Imp. Co. 



St. 525; Wales v. Ford, 8 N. J. v. Pracker, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 



L. 267. 261, 22 S. W. 830. 



•^3 Elgin Road Trustees v. In- ^s Hoag v. Orange Mt. Land 



nes, 14 Eettie (Sc. Ct. Sess.) Co., 12 N, .T. L. Jour. 243. 

 48; Hurd v. Lacy, 93 Ala. 427; 



