248 
AMERICAN AGRICULTURIST. 
[June, 
their way above ground. Experience lias 
taught that the united effort of many 
seeds will break through the soil above 
them, and that it is better to sow an excess 
and thin afterwards. There is nothing in 
which a novice is more apt to make a mis¬ 
take than in thinning. He dislikes to de¬ 
stroy so many young plants, and has to learn 
by experience that a larger crop will result 
from the same plants thinned to 6 inches 
apart than if left at half that distance. Do 
not delay thinning too long, as in the opera¬ 
tion the weeds that have come up in the row 
are to be pulled at the same time and a 
double advantage gained by the operation. 
A Method of Curing Hay. 
Mr. C. P. Waring, Essex Co., Va., sends us 
a method of curing hay which he has used for 
several years to his entire satisfaction. It 
Fig. 1 —THE FRAME. 
consists in taking four slender stakes six feet 
long, a, a, a, a (figure 1), fastened together at 
the upper ends with a loose joint similar to 
that of an ordinary tripod. One end of the 
fifth stake, b, rests on one of the four legs 
about a foot from the ground, the other end 
resting on the ground. The hay is stacked 
around this frame Dearly to the top of the 
stakes, after which the stake, b, is with¬ 
drawn, and then the four upright stakes are 
removed. This is done by two men with hay 
forks, who raise them directly upwards. As 
soon as the legs are lifted from the ground 
Fig. 2.—THE SMALL STACK. 
the pressure of the hay brings them together, 
and they can be removed with ease, leaving 
a small stack of hay, as shown in figure 2, 
with an air passage running from the bottom 
upwards through the center of the small 
stack, as indicated by the dotted lines, shown 
in the engraving. 
Preserving Eggs. —D. D. Day, Orleans 
Co., N. Y., sends us the following method of 
preserving eggs which he has employed for 
thirty years : “Take any package, square or 
round, and put dry bran in the bottom. Set 
the eggs on end in a layer in the bran, cover¬ 
ing them with bran. Put in another layer of 
eggs, and continue in the same way until the 
box is filled. The package should be put in 
a dry cool place. I make it a rule to turn 
the package ‘end for end once a week.’” 
Law for Farmers-Cattle in the Highway. 
H. A. HAIGH, L. L. B. 
The question whether domestic animals 
should be tolerated in the highways has been 
much discussed. It is sufficiently important 
to merit the attention it has received ; for it 
has been stated that the farm fences of the 
country cost as much as the farm houses and 
barns. I do not vouch for the accuracy of 
this statement, but the expense, which is 
certainly very great, is occasioned far more 
by the necessity of fencing straying cattle 
out, than by fencing our own cattle in. 
It is a general doctrine of law in this coun¬ 
try that the land in the highway belongs- to 
the owners of land lying along each side. 
With a few exceptions the American farm 
extends to the middle of the road, and the 
public has only the right to pass and repass 
there in an orderly manner, and the right to 
keep the way in repair.- Every other use of 
the highway which does not interfere with 
this public right, belongs to the farmer own¬ 
ing the adjacent land. He owns the soil, 
grass, trees, stones, and gravel, and every¬ 
thing'else upon the surface or under it, and 
may use them all in any way that does not 
affect the public right of passage ; and the 
law will protect his ownership in them just 
as much as though they were inside his fence. 
No other person has any more right to pasture 
his stock there than in inclosed lands; nor can 
he hitch his horse to a tree there without being- 
liable for the trespass, especially if the horse 
should gnaw the tree or do other damage; 
he can, in fact, only pass orderly along. 
The Legislature of New York State, many 
years ago, enacted that the freeholders of 
townships could make regulations as to road 
fences, and prescribe the times and manner 
in which domestic animals should be allowed 
to roam in the highways, and the statute was 
held to be constitutional by the Supreme 
Court of that State, though some of the 
judges dissented. See Griffin vs. Martin (7 
Barb. 297), and Hardenburgh vs. Lockwood 
(25 Barb. 12). These decisions are directly 
contrary to the -strongly expressed dicta of 
several judges of the same Court, particu¬ 
larly that of Chief Justice Beardsley in 
Towawanda Railway Co. vs. Munger (5 Denio 
264), which was affirmed by the Court of 
Appeals, though not upon this point. The 
question seems never to have come directly 
before the Court of Appeals. It is doubtful 
whether the statute would be held to be good 
law by that, the Court of last resort in New 
York. The Legislatures of other States 
have not generally gone so far, and the 
above statement of the law may be regarded 
as practically universal in this country. 
Now with respect to domestic animals, 
the common law required every man who 
owned such to keep them upon his own 
premises at his peril. It did not require him 
to fence his neighbor’s cattle out, but only to 
fence his own cattle in, or otherwise restrain 
them. This, too, may be stated as the law 
quite generally in this country, with the 
single exception that it has been restricted 
by local statutes so far as relates to the own¬ 
ers of adjoining lands. For it would be folly 
to require each to fence in his cattle against 
the other, as two parallel line fences would 
be a useless expense. Statutes have there¬ 
fore generally been passed requiring adjoin¬ 
ing owners of improved lands to maintain 
partition fences in equal shares; and if either 
is in default, he has no remedy for the tres¬ 
passes by the stock of the other (Stafford vs. 
Ingersoll, 3 Hill 38). 
As to road fences, the laws do not, with 
the possible exception of those of New York 
above noted, impose any obligation ; and the 
farmer may, if he chooses, remove such 
fences, without impairing his right of action 
against the owners of any domestic animals 
that enter and do damage by that means. 
As a person, therefore, has no right to let 
his cattle go in the highway, let us see what 
his liabilities are if he does do so.—In the 
first place he is liable for the trespass they 
commit by simply being there unlawfully. 
He is liable for the grass or other -herbage 
they consume, for the injury they occasion 
by uprooting the sod or barking the trees, 
and for any other damage they may reason¬ 
ably be expected to do. If while there they 
hook, or kick, or bite any person lawfully 
using the way, he would be liable for the in¬ 
jury (Barnes vs. Chapin, 4 Allen 444) possibly 
even though he did not know of their vicious 
disposition. A man once turned his horse 
into a public place where children were play¬ 
ing, one of whom began switching the horse, 
which turned and kicked and killed the 
child. He was convicted of manslaughter 
(10 Cox 102). The owner of a drove of cattle, 
which is allowed to stop and feed in front of 
a farm, is just as much liable for the feed 
taken as if they did the same inside the fence. 
The owner of a horse which gnaws and barks 
a tree in the highway, is liable for the injury, 
whether the horse is lawfully in the highway 
or not, and the owner of the tree may remove 
the horse without becoming liable (Gilman 
vs. Emery, 54 Me. 460). 
Notwithstanding the fact that the farmer 
owns the land of the road, he cannot use it 
himself for any purpose which at all inter¬ 
feres with the public rights there. He can 
not put his wood piles, wagons, or pig pens 
there ; and if he does, and the traveller runs 
into them in the night and is injured, - he 
would not only be liable for the private dam¬ 
ages sustained—(Linsley vs. Bu.shnell, 15 
Conn. 225) but he may be indicted for ob¬ 
structing a public way.—From this brief re¬ 
view-, it will be seen that the law is strongly 
against turning the highway into a cow 
pasture or a barn-yard. 
Summer Poultry Houses and Yards. 
BT D. Z. EVANS, JR. 
Poultry houses should be comfortable for 
the fowls both in winter and summer, and to 
make them so is not very difficult or expen¬ 
sive. While some breeders claim a southern 
exposure as the most desirable, my experi¬ 
ence is different. 1 have, invariably, had 
better results with houses facing the east. It 
may be well enough to have them face south 
in winter, but during the intense heat of 
summer it is very objectionable, especially 
where the fow-ls are kept confined to their 
yards and houses during the entire breeding 
season. If, by having them face the east, or 
even the southeast, there is enough sunshine 
