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.*? Ina 
Canadian case it was even held that the owner of 
the fence, which had no rail to give warning, was 
51 Sturtevant v. Merrill, 33 
Me. 62. 
52 Ward v. Brown, 64 II. 
307; Rosswell v. Cottom, 31 Pa. 
St. 525; Wales v. Ford, 8 N. J. 
L. 267. 
53 Elgin Road Trustees v, In- 
nes, 14 Rettie (Se. Ct. Sess.) 
48; Hurd v. Lacy, 93 Ala. 427; 
Sisk v. Crump, 112 Ind. 504; 
Foster v. Swope, 41 Mo. App. 
137. 
54 Galveston Land & Imp. Co. 
vy. Pracker, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 
261, 22 S. W. 830. 
55 Hoag v. Orange Mt. Land 
Co. 12 N. J. L. Jour. 243. 
