440 
Boundary Fences. 
Fisher's Piece ; any other person attempting to do so would be a 
trespasser. Prima facie, therefore, the owner of Fisher's Piece is the 
proper person to repair the wall, if there is any obligation to main- 
tain it." 
After stating that the evidence at the trial proved that the 
wall had been repaired by the tenants of Fisher's Piece, is Honour 
continued, " From that evidence and the other facts of the case I 
come to the conclusion that the owner of that field or his tenant 
is bound to maintain this wall for the benefit, not only of himself, 
but also of his adjoining neighbour, and that the plaintiff by not 
keeping it in repair or repairing it when it was out of repair com- 
mitted a breach of his duty. What, then, is the result 1 It was 
many years ago decided that where a man had distrained damage 
feasant cattle that had escaped from a close through a defect of a 
fence, which he himself ought to have repaired, and ultimately 
strayed into his close, he was wrong, the trespass being the natural 
consequences of his own neglect of duty. The principle of that 
decision governs the present case ; if the plaintiff, as I hold it 
was his duty to do, had kept this fence in repair, the trespass would 
not have happened. There must therefore be judgment for the 
defendant. But I would add a word in addition to prevent any mis- 
apprehension as to the meaning and effect of my judgment. While 
I hold that the defendant has established a prescriptive right to 
have the wall maintained in repair, I do not think that he can claim 
to have it made higher so as to be a more effectual barrier. One of 
the witnesses said he did not think it was a turnable fence, but there 
was no evidence to show that the sheep jumped over the low places 
of the wall, only that they got through the gaps. If after the wall 
is repaired the defendant's sheep jump over the low places into 
the plaintiff's field, he will, according to my view, be liable for any 
trespass which the sheep commit. It is not for me to advise the 
defendant, but it is worth his consideration, if any part of the wall 
is a doubtful barrier, whether for his own protection he should not 
put up a wire fence on his own land." 
A writer in the Law Journal thus tersely and truthfully comments 
on this case : " The lesson which the Judge reads to the Agricul- 
tural mind in the district over which he presides is that an occupier 
of land, if he does not fence for himself, must take his chance of 
his neighbour's cattle straying on his land, unless he can show by a 
long course of practice that the occupier of the neighbouring land 
has not only repaired the fence but has repaired for his neighbour's 
advantage as well as his own." S. B. L. Dhuce. 
