FENCING-IN THE CATTLE.

Patea Mail, Volume IV, Issue 334, 29 June 1878, Page 4

FENCING-IN THE CATTLE.

[From the Auckland Weekly News .] The letter of our Port Albert correspondent records a very important ruling by Air Stout, the Attorney-General. It is upon a subject of much interest to country settlers—the fencing question—anil settles for ever the disputed duty of fencing-in . or- fencing-oat. For a long time past the damage, done by wandering animals—animals purposely turned out by the owners to prey upon the crops of anyone to which access could be obtained —has been a subject of grievance in all country districts. The Port Albeit district has been no exception to the general rule. About two months ago, a charge of trespass by sheep was brought by Air John Becroft against Mr Jb Martin Gnbb, both of Albortlaud. The'plaintiff claimed twopence per head of sheep for each day they trespassed upon his land, which was but'partly fenced. Vthen the case was brought before H. T. Kemp, E5q.,.11.M., it was arranged that the matter should be referred to the Attorney-General for his opinion, the parties to the suit agreeing to abide by that opinion. The Hon. Air. Stout has now decided in favour of the plaintiff, thus upholding the lights of private property. The decision is in accordance with the views frequently expressed in this journal, and will have a widespread influence in the Auckland iwovincial district. Air. Stout evidently holds that no one lias a right to trespass upon private property; that the owners of cultivations have a right to the peaceful enjoyment of the same; and that owners of cattle must provide food for them upon their own premises without molesting the cultivated grounds of others. This ruling will put an end to inc abuse which has so long existed in many parts of tins province of persons purchasing an acre or two of land in a district, procuring a number of cattle, and turning them adrift to roam at large, and obtain food wherever-they could find it. ‘ Such a system was as discreditable ' to the owners of fhe cattle as it was annoying to those whose fences were broken down and wiiose crops were eaten by the cattle thus sent out to steal. Crops are stationary, and arc not' likely to give trouble or annoyance to anyone ; but the case is quite different with cattle, unless they arc kept within proper enclosures, it has not nnirequeutiy happened that (luring a night a breach has been made iu fences by cattle so turned loose to find food wherever they could, and damage done to crops many times the value of the ill-bred and hall-starved animals which did the mischief. The' fencing la ws here have been a source of continual discord in country districts, inasmuch as they were drawn up.in favour of the squatter as against the man who really .cultivated the ground.' It is not long since that the annoyance produced by trespassing animals iu one of our settlements was such, that minder was committed through the provocation this caused. The opinion given by the Attorney-General in the case referred to will have the effect of shewing that the owners of cultivated lands arc not so devoid oi’ prelection us it Inis been the custom of cattle owners to represent, and we have no doubt that it will tend largely to encourage cultivation, and help to hasten the lime when the cattle at present lobe found, in our northern settlements will bo substituted for superior ones; for if cattle are to be fed and kept upon their owner’s ground, it is evident that the

better the class of cattle thus reared, the more profitable will be the result, as illbred animals will consume as much food as stock of a better class.