The RURAL. NEW-YORKER 
963 
The Great Line Fence Problem 
Of all the questions received here, dur¬ 
ing the growing season, it is probable that 
the “line fence” proposition leads in num¬ 
ber. Practically every day brings us the 
story of a neighborhood quarrel over a 
line fence. One party refuses to build 
his share, or the other party claims that 
what his neighbor builds is not strong 
enough to hold the stock. Sometimes one 
party is a gardener, without any stock at 
all, while the other man may be a dairy¬ 
man with a large herd of cattle. Natur¬ 
ally the gardener cannot see why he 
should be compelled to go to the expense 
of keeping his neighbor’s cattle enclosed. 
There are many of these troubles, partic¬ 
ularly in New York State. The following 
synopsis is made of the town law in rela¬ 
tion to line fences, and we would like to 
have our people keep it for reference, as 
it will prevent much private correspond¬ 
ence : 
First of all, be it understood that the 
fence viewers of the town represent the 
last authority in these line fence troubles. 
These fence viewers represent the asses¬ 
sors and the town superintendent of high¬ 
ways, who are elected in every town. The 
law states that by virtue of tbeir offices 
they are the fence viewers of the town 
and they are the local authorities who are 
to settle these fence troubles. 
The law states that each owner of two 
adjoining tracts of land shall make and 
maintain a just and equitable portion of 
the division fence between such lands. 
This is unless they can agree to make 
some other division, or else agree to let 
both of said lands lie open. The latter 
would often follow in cases where very 
little live stock was kept, but unless there 
is such agreement the fence must be main¬ 
tained. and each party must build a fair 
share of it. 
The law further provides that when 
disputes arise between the owners of ad¬ 
joining land, over any fence problem, such 
dispute shall be settled by the fence view¬ 
ers of the town. Any two of these fence 
viewers may act. One is to be chosen by 
each party. If either party neglect, after 
eight days’ notice, to make any such 
choice, the other party may select both 
of the fence viewers. These fence view¬ 
ers are obliged by law to see that all par¬ 
ties interested have a reasonable notice, 
and they must come and view the proper¬ 
ty and hear both sides. If they cannot 
agree they are to consult another fence 
viewer to act with them. The decision of 
any two of them shall be reduced to writ¬ 
ing, with a description of the fence and 
the proportion which each must maintain. 
This written decision shall be final, and 
it is to be filed in the office of the town 
clerk. All parties are holden by this de¬ 
cision. 
If any party whose duty it is to build 
or maintain a fence shall neglect or re¬ 
fuse to keep up his fair proportion, or 
shall let the same go out of repair, he is 
liable to pay the party injured all of such 
damage as may accrue thereby. The cost 
of «uch damage can be appraised by any 
two fence viewers, and is to be recovered 
with cost. The appraisement of such 
damage must be reduced to writing, and 
signed by the fence viewers making it. If 
any person liable to maintain a good 
fence neglects to do so for one month 
after a request in writing to make or 
repair the fence, the injured party may 
repair the same, and he may collect from 
the other party the expense of so doing. 
This is to be recovered by him with cost. 
Whenever the electors of any town 
shall adopt any rule or regulation as to 
what a division fence shall be, any per¬ 
son neglecting to keep a fence according 
to such rule shall be precluded from re¬ 
covering compensation for damages done 
by any beast lawfully kept upon adjoining 
lands which may enter his premises 
through any defective fence. Under this 
law, when the sufficiency of the fence 
shall come in question in any action, it 
shall be presumed to have been sufficient 
until the contrary is established. 
If any person liable to contribute to the 
erection or repair of any division fence 
shall neglect or refuse to take care of his 
proportion, or permit it to get out of re¬ 
pair, he shall not be allowed to have and 
maintain any action for damages incurred 
by the beasts coming therein from adjoin¬ 
ing lands, where such beasts are lawfully 
kept. The man who permits such a de¬ 
fective fence to remain shall be liable to 
pay to the party injured all damages that 
shall be accrued to his land or any of the 
crops growing therein. Such damages 
are to be appraised by any two fence 
viewers of the town. Any such appraise¬ 
ment, written and signed by the fence 
viewers, shall be prima facie evidence of 
■the amount of such damages. 
The law covering the use of barbed 
wire in division fences, briefly stated, is 
that uncovered barbed wire cannot be 
used in a division fence unless both par¬ 
ties agree in writing to such use. Where 
one party will not agree, it is legal to put 
a barbed wire at the top of the fence and 
cover it with a wooden board or plank. 
This law is clear and plain, and there 
should not be so much trouble between 
neighbors over it. Hundreds of the line 
fence questions which come to us should 
be referred to the fence viewer of the 
town, and in the great majority of cases 
all the advice that we can give is to fol¬ 
low out that method. One of the peculiar 
troubles arising now is what constitutes a 
legal fence to hold sheep or hogs. As is 
stated in the law, any town may decide 
by vote just what constitutes a legal 
fence in that town, and it would probably 
be far better that each town would make 
just such decision, and thus settle the 
matter. Generally speaking, a legal fence 
is one which will turn the common stock 
kept in that neighborhood or county. For 
instance, in a dairy country this would 
mean a strong fence that would hold cat¬ 
tle. In a case where some farmer put in 
a flock of sheep, it would not be fair to 
expect of his neighbors to pay for the cost 
of building an expensive sheep-tight fence, 
when a much cheaper fence would hold 
their cattle. In such a case it would 
probably be held that the owner of the 
sheep would be obliged to provide the 
extra fence to keep in his stock, and if 
the sheep went through the cattle fence 
and caused damage on the land of the 
neighbor, the owner of the sheep would 
be responsible for that damage, and would 
be obliged to pay for it. 
Another point which frequently comes 
up to make trouble is who is responsible 
in the case of a rented farm. Is the 
owner of the farm obliged to keep up the 
fence, or is the tenant obliged to do so? 
Very much of the trouble which comes to 
us is caused from the fact that i tenant 
refuses to keep up the fence, or at least 
his share of it, and the stock will come 
through, causing damage. Wh >n the 
fence viewers are called in to settle such 
casee they are often at a loss to know 
whether the tenant or the farm iwner 
should be forced to keep up the fence or 
pay such damages. That depends upon 
the contract between the landlord and 
tenant. In some cases the landlord ap¬ 
pears to get rid of the responsibility by 
stating that the tenant must keep up the 
farm fences, while the tenant is not finan¬ 
cially responsible, and a judgment could 
not be enforced against him. 
Rights of Landlord and 
Tenant 
I lived on a farm where I had lease 
for three to five years, 'as I wanted it. 
April 13 owner told me that the place 
was sold and that I would have to get off 
very soon. I found a farm and moved. 
Now owner tells me he is going to sue 
me, as I had no right to move before he 
gave me written notice, and wants taxes 
for balance of five years’ lease. I had 
lived there only one year. Can he sue? 
Can he take cow, team, other stock, hay 
and tools if he gets judgment? Would 
it be best to sell all my stock so it will 
not be taken away? I did not get any 
court notice, only he has it in hands of 
justice of the peace. w. A. 
If you depend on the tools you have 
named for your livelihood they are ex¬ 
empt from sale under an execution; also 
your team and cow. If you have proof 
that the owner directed you to move, if 
there is no provision in the contract rela¬ 
tive to sale, the owner might be liable 
for damages sustained by you, provided 
the term of your contract had not ex¬ 
pired. N. T. 
" For Better Heating* 
NDES FURNAC 
The Ancles 1-Pipe Warm Air Furnace has 
a four bar four shaker grate that cleans 
the sides of the fire pot without losing 
good coal in the center. This increases 
furnace capacity and saves fuel. 
Stove, Range or Furnace Catalogs on Request 
Phillips 8c Clark Stove Co., Inc., Geneva, N. Y. 
Manufacturers since 1868 of the famous Andes line of Coal, Gas 
and Combination Ranges and 1-Pipe, 3-Pipe and Pipe Furnaces. 
Fresh Air Heat 
at Lozv Cost 
This efficient furnace provides a constant flow of pure, 
clear air, heated to the right temperature. 
THATCHER TUBULAR FURNACE 
The famous Thatcher “Tubular” combustion chamber 
prevents the air from becoming overheated or 
scorched. You will save money on coal bills, too. 
Write for illustrated “Tubular ” catalogue 
TLJ ATPLirD HEATERS 
i li/V 1 & RANGES 
Since 18S0 
THATCHER FURNACE CO., 39-41 St. Francis Street, NEWARK, N. J. 
Eastern Display Rooms, 133-135 West 35th St., N. Y. City Western Display Rooms, 341 No. Clark St, Chicago, III. 
||% Killed with PARAFIX. (Pure Paradlchlorbenzene 
fmmili ■ recommended by U. S. Gov. & State Exp. Sta.) 
" Full instructions, results guaranteed or money 
DADPVIC back. Booklet FREE. Treat 10 trees $1. 
ti ll tl ^ 60 trees S3. Postpaid or C.O. D. Dept. B 
The Parafix Co., 7 East42nd St..N.Y.C. 
When you write advertisers mention 
The Rural New-Yorker and you’ll get 
a quick reply and a “square deal.” See 
guarantee editorial page. : : : 
Organized Co-operation 
A NEW BOOK 
This book is written in three 
parts. 
PART ONE.—The Develop¬ 
ment of the Agricultural Indus¬ 
try. In five chapters. 
PART TWO. — Fundamental 
Principles and Adaptable Forms 
of Co-operative Organization. In 
ten chapters. 
PART THREE. — Application 
of Co-operation to Efficient and 
Economic Distribution of Farm 
Products. In seven chapters. 
This is a new treatment of the 
co-operative subject. Heretofore 
writers of bi.oks have contented 
Bound in Cloth 
By JOHN J. DILLON 
themselves with accounts of co¬ 
operative work where established. 
It has been mostly propaganda 
and exhortation. This was all 
good in its time. But we have 
grown beyond it. Farmers are 
now committed to co-operation. 
Once shy of it, they are at last a 
unit for it. What they want now 
is principles and definite policies 
that have Droved successful. This-- 
book is the first real attempt to 
supply this want. Other, and it 
is to be hop.d better, books will 
follow on this line; but for the 
present there is no other book 
seriously treating the subject of 
organized co-operation. 
Price $1.00 
The Rural New-Yorker, 333 West 30th St., New York 
