t)90 LIABILITY UNDER THE STATUTES. 



fenced and were required by law to do so.^''^ This is tiie 

 rule in Missouri where the plaintiff seeks to recover double 

 damages under the statute, but not where he sues in an ordi- 

 nary action for single damages only."''" But most of the cases 

 hold that the fact that the company need not have, or could 

 not have, fenced is a matter of defence only and one that the 

 plaintiff is not required to negative in his statement.^'* The 

 fact that a sufficient length of time had not elapsed, after the 

 fence became defective, to allow the company an opportunity 

 to repair it is also a matter of defence and need not be nega- 

 tived by the plaintiff.^^^ 



If the land-owner has received a specific sum for fencing 

 along the line or has agreed to build and maintain a lawful 

 fence, or has received compensation for so doing by way of 

 damages in the condemnation of the land, the burden is on 

 the company to show such fact in defence, and not on the 

 plaintiff to negative it.^^* Where a statute required cattle- 

 guards to be erected at certain points, the petition in an action 



™ Ohio & Miss. R. Co. v. Brown, 23 111. 94; Chic, B, & Q. R. Co. 

 V. Carter, 20 id. 390. 



'■^Ward V. St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co., 91 Mo. 168; Mayfield v. St. 

 Louis & S. F. R. Co., Ibid. 296; Radcliffe v. St. Louis, I. M. & S, R. Co., 

 90 id. 127; Tickell v. Same, Ibid. 296; Jones v. Same, 44 Mo. App. 13; 

 Brassfield v. Patton, 32 id. 572; Briscoe v. Mo. Pac. R. Co., 25 id. 468. 



See Hamilton v. Mo. Pac. R. Co., 87 Mo. 85, where it was held that,- 

 in an action to recover double damages, the burden is on the company to 

 show any circumstances exempting it from its duty to fence. 



"" Cine, I., St. L. & C. R. Co. v. Parker, 109 Ind. 235; Evansville & T. 

 H. R. Co. V. Mosier, loi id. 597; Jeffersonville, M. & I. R. Co. v. Lyon, 

 72 id. 107; Ohio & M. R. Co. v. McClure, 47 id. 317; Lake Erie & W. 

 R. Co. V. Rooker, 13 Ind. App. 600; Un. Pac. R. Co. v. Dyche, 28 Kan 

 200; Internat. & G. N. R. Co. v. Dunham, 68 Tex. 231; Blomberg v. 

 Stewart, 67 Wis. 455; Cox v. Minneapolis, S. S. M. & A. R. Co., 41 Minn 



lOI. 



=" Busby V. St. Louis, K. C. & N. R. Co., 81 Mo. 43; Jeffersonville, M. 

 & I. R. Co. V. Sullivan, 38 Ind. 262. 



See Perry v. Dubuque S. R. Co., 36 la. 102; Townsley v. Mo. Pac. 

 R. Co., 89 Mo. 31. 



"" Toledo, P. & W. R. Co. v. Pence, 68 111. 524. 



