Show THAT GRAZING LANDS DECISION A writing from littleton morgan county propounds the following In inquiries quirIM respecting spec ting the scope of the decision in the case of buford et al vs floutz et al lately rendered in the supreme court of the united states various opinions being entertained over the decision of the supreme court of the united states in the matter of stock running on railroad lands purchased by private parties we would like some information on the subject in times past parties from other counties have driven their stock and sheep on our range and almost to our very doors until our range was overstocked over stocked and destroyed our people in this place have contracted with the union pacific railroad for four sections of railroad lands and at a sacrifice have made the first fint payment now those same par ties with others say that under the recent decision they ley cau can drive and pasture their stock on our land and we cannot sue for trespass but that we must fence our lands to receive the benefit of our purchase the information we desire is can those parties or others do this or to what extent can they drive or pasture on those lands before they are committing a trespass have the people who have contracted for the purchase of those 1 lands more rights in pasturing pa stock on those ose same lands than strangers dd again we have a no fence law if the people should cultivate any part or portion of said land by sowing various kinds of grass seeds needs could stock be taken up for trespass if there were no fenie around it these are matters of interest to many it will be remembered that the plaintiffs were the purchasers of a 9 large number of sections of C P railroad land and that the defend ante ants were sheep owners the action was brought to prevent the latter fro from in driving their shee sheep p over the lands belonging to we ane plaintiffs in order to pus pass from one section of 9 government 0 vern ment land to another th the e case cage was first decided by judge zane whose decision we understand is affirmed throughout the effects of the decision as we understand tand it are as follows fellows private parties who have purchased or leased from railroad companies the sections of land which alternate with government sections must fence their claims in order to have a right of action tor for trespass when the stock of other parties are driven over them in fencing feeding the private sections ns of land a right of way must be left open that will admit of stock being driven from one government section to ano another it private sections are not fenced stock may be driven over them and may graze to a reasonable extent in passing but may may not be herded upon them it should be remembered th that at this applies only to grazing lands lanag and not to lands upon which any kind of seed or crops have been sown if the sections referred to by our correspondent aie Included in a precinct in which a no fence law prevails such portions of them as have been sown to any kind of a crop come under the operations of the no fence law and damages may be recovered for trespass upon the cultivated portions but such parts of the sections referred to by our correspondent as still remain uncultivated grazing lands do not come under the operations of the local no fence law but under the rules laid d wn in the decision here referred to |