BARB WIRE FENCES. 203 



this reason, at the first, in the early American colonies, as 

 later in Australia, the rule was adopted which has been 

 repeated in the growth of every new State and Territory 

 since that time, that to leave uncultivated lands open was 

 an implied license to cattle and other stock at large to 

 traverse and graze them. The principle of common law 

 was inapplicable to the circumstances and condition of the 

 people in a newly settled country, inconsistent with their 

 habits, interests, necessities and understanding. Let us 

 refer to some of these early fence laws, early in point of 

 time in the history of the whole country, and early in the 

 history of States that came or still are coming later into 

 existence. 



By early laws of Massachusetts every man was bound to 

 fence his close not only against his neighbors, but against 

 all the world. But of the revision by the legislature of 

 the Commonwealth in 1785, Chief Justice Parsons says: — 



"The object of the statute of 1785 was to establish the 

 rights and obligations of tenants of adjoining occupied 

 closes respecting the making and maintaining of partition 

 fences, and the rights of persons not having any interest in 

 either of the adjoining closes remain unafiected by the 

 statutes, and are to be defined and protected by the common 

 law." (6 Mass. 90.) Owners of cattle must keep them at 

 home at peril. 



In Connecticut, through all the revisions since 1650, the 

 provision has existed, that whatever damage is done by 

 cattle (unruly cattle expressly excepted), through want or 

 insufficiency of fences, it shall not be recoverable by law. 

 The owner and occupant of land is obliged to fence it against 

 cattle. (21 Conn. 329.) 



In Vermont the land owner owes no duty in fences 

 except to an adjoining proprietor. Fences are to keep at 

 home the cattle of the occupant. (38 Yt. G78.) 



In Pennsylvania the common law rule, in regard to keep- 

 ing one's cattle at home, is reversed by statutes, and im- 

 proved lands must be fenced in order that the owner may 

 recover for damages done by stray cattle. (25 Legal lutell. 

 372, 1868.) 



In Ohio it has been and remains the rule to enclose 



