CATTLE-GUAKDS. 681 



owner asserts that it is necessary to prevent the depredation 

 •of stock on his farm, is not unconstitutional because it leaves 

 the determination to the owner.*^^ But a statute giving 

 damages where all stock pass through cattle-guards and com- 

 mit depredation is unconstitutional as imposing an absolute 

 liability irrespective of negligence or want of compliance with 

 a statute.^*^ 



142. Where Fences are Necessary; Station Grounds. — The sub- 

 ject of fencing in cities and villages and at crossings generally 

 has already been considered.^*" Where a statute requires 

 fences to be constructed along "occupied lands" only, this 

 has been held to mean lands adjoining a railway actually or 

 constructively occupied up to the line of the railway by rea- 

 son of the actual occupation of some part of the section or lot 

 by the person who owns it or is entitled to possession of the 

 whole.^®* A statute has been held to require fencing only 

 where the track runs through or alongside of the land of pri- 

 vate individuals; ^^^ and another statute has been held to ap- 

 ply where land is not under cultivation but is occupied by 

 farmers and forms a part of tracts which were under cultiva- 

 tion.*®^ Where a statute -requires a company to erect fences 

 where the road passes along enclosed or cultivated fields or 

 unenclosed prairie lands, this requires fences on both sides of 

 the road, but does not extend to timber lands from which 

 timber has been cut, but which are not cultivated.*®^ 



Where a company was required to fence, except at places 

 where the railroad commissioners deemed it unnecessary, it 

 was held not to be obliged to fence where the track ran paral- 

 lel to and fifty feet away from another track, though the com- 



' Birmingham Mineral R. Co. v. Parsons, lOO Ala. 662. 

 ' Ibid. '"' See § 140, supra. 

 ° Davis V. Can. Pac. R. Co., 12 Ont. App. 724. 

 'Walsh V. Virginia & T. R. Co., 8 Nev. no. 

 'Stimpson v. Un. Pac. R. Co., 9 Utah 123. 

 'Tiarks v. St. Louis & I. M. R. Co., 58 Mo. 45. 



