INJURIES PROM BARBED-WIRE FENCES. 155 



simple and rendered the owner thereof liable for damages oc- 

 casioned by contact therewith. Such a question can only be 

 decided when it is raised and according to the facts of the 

 particular case. I can conceive of a state of facts where the 

 law would hold the owner of the fence liable." ^^'^ 



In another case in the same State it was held that the owner 

 of land who erects a division fence owes it to his neighbor not 

 to incorporate in it anything which in view of the habits of the 

 animals for which the land would naturally be used would 

 tend to injure them, — as in this case, barbed-wires. It was 

 also held that the. owner of the horse might recover though 

 he had bailed it to one to pasture who knew of the existence 

 of the wire;^^^ whereas in a Pennsylvania county court it was 

 held that the owner could not recover in such a case, if the 

 agistor had consented to the fence.^®® In Missouri also it has 

 been held that the fact of the plaintiff's knowledge of the wire 

 is not essential ; he cannot be deprived of the use of his prem- 

 ises by the defendant's violation of duty.^^° So, in Oregon, 

 where the plaintifif turned his stock loose in the highway with 

 the knowledge that a barbed-wire fence along the highway 

 had no board or pole thereon, as required by statute, it was 

 held that he was not guilty of contributory negligence."^ 



Where a railway company fenced off their land from the 

 adjoining lands with a barbed-wire fence, they were held liable 

 for the death of a sheep belonging to an adjacent owner."^ 

 And where an owner, liable to fence, placed barbed-wire upon 

 his own land, but in such a position as to be dangerous to 

 cattle in the plaintiff's field, he was held liable for an injury 



'" Hoag V. Orange Mountain Land Co., 12 N. J. L. Jour. 243. 



™ Polak V. Hudson, 10 N. J. L. Jour. 43. 



"™ Pim V. Griffith, 3 Pa. Co. Ct. 177- 



"° Gooch V. Bowyer, 62 Mo. App. 206. 



"' Siglin V. Coos Bay, R. & E., R. & N. Co. (Oreg.), 56 Pac. Rep. ion. 



""^ McQuillen v. Crommellin Iron Ore Co., 26 Ir. L. T. Rep. 15. And 

 see Shipton v. Lucas, 26 Ir. L. T. 148. 



That a company must use diligence in running trains under such cir- 

 cumstances, see Atlanta & W. P. R. Co. v. Hudson, 62 Ga. 679. 



