GROUNDS.
See, generally, as to fencing railroads ; 3 Wood, R. R. 417, 421, where the eases are collected ; 5 L. R. A. 737, note, and 8 L. R. A. 135, note, both citing statutes and decisions; 11L. R. A. 427, note (Missouri statutes and decisions) ; Whart. Negl. 892 ; Parker v. Ry. Co., 93 Mich. 607, 53 N. W. 834 ; Chicago, B. & Q. it Co. v. Finch, 42 Ill. App. 90 ; Done gan v. Erhardt, 119 N. Y. 468, 23 N. E. 1051, 7 L. R. A. 527; Dickson v. R. Co., 124 Mo. 140, 27 S. W. 476, 25 L. R. A. 320, 46 Am. St. Rep. 429.
It is held that one is not necessarily neg ligent in using a barbed wire fence, but it should be so used and cared for as not to endanger persons and property, and the use of such fences imposes upon those who use them care reasonably proportionate to their danger ; Sisk v. Crump, 112 Ind. 504, 14 N. E. 381, 2 Am. St. Rep. 213 ; a railroad com pany using barbed fences must use due dili gence in running its trains, not only to avoid killing stock, but to avoid precipitating them by fright against the fence to be mangled or bruised ; Atlanta & W. P. R. Co. v. Hudson, 62 Ga. 680. On his own land one may main tain such a fence, and it is not illegal ; Worth ington v. Wade, 82 Tex. 26, 17 S. W. 520, af firming Davis v. Davis, 70 Tex. 123, 7 S. W. 826; and expressly disapproving Williams v. Mudgett, 2 Tex. Unrep. Cas. 254 ; s. c. 2 Tex.
L. Rev. 338 (commented on, 29 Alb. L. J. 23), in which it was held that "such fences are dangerous unless constructed with planks in connection with the wire." But this case was also reviewed with all analogous cases in 8 Ont. H. B. Div. 583 ; where it was held that it was not negligence per ae to maintain such fences and they were not a nuisance. The owner is bound to keep the wires properly stretched and not hanging loose ; Loveland v. Gardner, 79 Cal. 317;21 Pac. 766, 4 L. R. A. 395 ; Sisk v. Crump, 112 Ind. 504, 14 N. E. 381, 2 Am. St. Rep. 213. See 10 N. J. L. J. 43. One who has allowed the use of his land by the public before stretching a barbed wire fence across the way is bound to give notice, in order to escape liability for injury result ing from ignorance of the obstruction ; Car skaddon v. Mills, 5 Ind. App. 22, 31 N. E. 559. If it was negligence to maintain such a fence near a private road, it would be negligence in a person riding a horse difficult to control, to approach it ; Worthington v. Wade, 82 Tex. 26, 17 S. W. 520. See ANIMAL.
In Scotch Law. To hedge in or protect by certain forms. To fence a court, to open in due form. Pitcairn, Cr. Law, pt. 1, p. 75.