374 MISCELLANEOUS 



any claim for damage done by his neighbour's stock trespassing. 

 There should be in a schedule attached to the Act such excep- 

 tions to the term " domestic animals " as will readily suggest 

 themselves to any practical man in drafting. 



HENRY WILLIAMS. 



REPORT BY COLONEL MAUDE. 



I agree with so much of the Report as is stated in Clauses 1 

 to 25. 



I cannot subscribe to Clauses 26 to 29. 



From the discussions which I have heard in Committee, and 

 also in Council, I feel sure that a great many of those members 

 who are opposing any alteration of the law on this subject fail 

 entirely to realise how objectionable the law is in its present state 

 to the farming community in grazing districts ; how it is in the 

 power of one man, either of a slothful, untidy, impecunious, or 

 cantankerous disposition, as the case may be, to stir up a state 

 of strife and ill-feeling in a whole parish by refusing or neglecting 

 to keep up the fences in the usual state of repair, which have 

 been, by custom or award, so kept up by his predecessors for 

 generations. 



Fortunately, farmers as a rule are of a peaceful, law-abiding 

 disposition, and will submit to a great deal to avoid going into 

 the courts, and, consequently, few cases come before the public 

 by means of the Press. But although this is so, the evil and 

 injustice is there all the same and keeps cropping up, first in one 

 place and then in another ; therefore, I feel that every effort 

 should be made to find a remedy while the matter is now before 

 the Chambers, and not hang it up indefinitely, or abandon it 

 altogether, as would be the case if Clauses 26 to 29 were adopted. 



There have only been some three objections put forward, so 

 far 'as I have gathered, to the Bill which has been under dis- 

 cussion. They are as follows : 



(a) The undesirability of dealing with fences, the owner- 

 ship of which is unknown or in dispute. 



(b) The burden or hardship which would be put upon arable 

 farmers if they were compelled to make long lengths of 

 fences into such as would turn stock, when previously they 

 had only been nominal fences, because the occupier of the 

 adjoining land chose to lay it down to pasture and graze 

 it with stock. 



(c) The difficulty in defining what are " unruly " stock 

 and what are sufficient fences. 



Taking these objections in the same order, with regard to (a), 

 it might be advisable, for the sake of simplifying the Bill and 

 avoiding what might be a very contentious subject, to drop this 

 part of the Bill. 



With regard to (6), the opposition under this head might be 

 met by limiting the obligation to keep a fence in such a state of 



