OCR Text |
Show THE OTHER SIDE. Whenever one side of a matter finds its way into our columns it is a pleasure to present the other also, if desired. As stated in our issue of the 23d, a lady called at this office and complained that a neighbor had shot two pigs belonging to her husband, which were trespassing on said neighbor's land, and asked if the shooting was lawful. Thinking that other readers of the Leader might also be interested to know if such a summary manner of disposing of estray swine &c., was legal, we took the opportunity to repeat the leading features of the lady's case, as she gave them, and to explain the lawful method of procedure and redress in such cases. It seems that one Joseph Knowles, shot the animals, and he sends us a communication in defense of his course. We reproduce the main portions of the letter, merely observing however, that in no case is a man legally justified in shooting estray animals because they are trespassing, and, for the sake of law and order, the Leader is bound to discountenance such a course, as the law makes ample provision for redress: "Editor Leader:-I respectfully beg to call your attention to the proverb, "He that judgeth a matter before hearing both sides of the tale is not wise." In your issue of the 23d inst. appeared an article headed "Estray Animals." The statements contained therein are calculated to mislead those not acquainted with the facts of the case, some statements being absolutely false. The facts are as follows: For a period of two months I have suffered annoyance and considerable damage by the destructive ravages of those pigs. The land upon which the damage was done is fenced to prevent the entrance of all stock, with the exception of pigs, which are generally kept in pens and not allowed to run loose like ordinary stock. I have repeatedly informed and reasoned and remonstrated with the owners of the animals concerning the damage done to my property and the impropriety of their conduct, but all to no use, and after warning them of the consequences if they still persisted in making their pork at my expense, I again found both pigs in my stack, when the occurrences related in the Leader took place. I at once informed them of the occurrence and requested them to take the pigs away which the lady did, informing me at the same time that she had turned the pigs out of their pen that morning and promising to pay me for the damage done by them, which payment however is still in the future. Any unbiased mind after reading your article would infer that the lady had promised to pay me for any damage done by the pigs, previous to the final ??, which is untrue." The writer continues by saying that, though the pigs have had a suitable pen, their owner has purposely turned them out, and that false tumors are being circulated in the neighborhood regarding the occurrence. We have devoted more space to this matter than it intrinsically deserved, but there are principles involved in it that all citizens should become familiar with, one of which is that there is a legal method for preventing trespass and recovering damage caused thereby. However aggravating such a nuisance as Mr. Knowles suffered from may be -and trespassing animals are often very aggravating and destructive-it is better to proceed according to law. |