666 LIABILITY UNDER THE STATUTES. 



would not bar recovery. It was held that the Massachusetts- 

 statute protected only adjoining land-owners and travellers 

 on the road, and that the company was not liable to the owner 

 of sheep that strayed on another's land and thence through a 

 defective fence that the company was bound to repair on ta 

 the track. ®^ It is otherwise where the injury is wanton or 

 malicious. ^^ 



In Missouri, the statute is for the protection of adjoining 

 land-owners only and the company is not liable where the ani- 

 mal killed had passed through the property of others before 

 reaching the track ; ^* unless it was on an adjoining field with 

 the consent of the owner thereof.*''' But there is no such 

 thing in that State as a trespass on unenclosed lands and, ac- 

 cordingly, if the field adjoining the unfenced track was not- 

 surrounded with a proper fence, the owner of the animal 

 passing through such field to the track may recover.®" A. 

 similar rule exists in Illinois.*'^ 



In Minnesota it was held that the fact that cattle were tres- 

 passing on the land from which they passed to the unfenced 

 track was no defence to an action by the owner. The court- 

 said, "Of the cases that consider statutes of this kind, we think 

 those are decided upon the better reason which hold that 

 such statutes are police regulations, designed for the protec- 

 tion of all, and not merely rules for constructing divisiort 



" Eames v. Salem & L. R. Co., 98 Mass. 560. 



" See McDonnell v. Pittsfield & N. A. R. Co., 115 Mass. 564; Maynard'- 

 V. Boston & M. R. Co., Ibid. 458. 



" Ferris v. St. Louis & H. R. Co., 30 Mo. App. 122. And see Bran- 

 denburg V. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co., 44 id. 224. 



" Hendrix v. St. Joseph & St. L. R. Co., 38 Mo. App. 520. 



'•Kaes V. Mo. Pac. R. Co., 6 Mo. App. 397; Duke v. Kansas City,. 

 F. S. & M. R. Co., 39 id. ids; Dean v. Omaha & St. L. R. Co., 54 id. 

 647; Berry v. St. Louis, S. & L. R. Co., 65 Mo. 172; Harrington v. Chic, 

 R. I. & P. R. Co., 71 id. 384; Peddicord v. Mo. Pac. R. Co., 85 id. 160. 



So, where the animal passed along a public road: Emmerson v St 

 Louis & H. R. Co., 35 Mo. App. 621. 



"111. Cent. R. Co. v. Arnold, 47 111. 173. 



