Do good fences make good neighbours? - Glimpses of the Past with Karen Webster

The old adage about good fences may be true in most cases, in that what is mine stays on my side and what is yours stays on yours. Our early settlers did not have fences at the outset of their habitation. Malcolm Lamont, in his memoir Bush Days, relates that a family likely had only one cow and that she would be allowed to graze in the forest. Each family’s milk cow had a distinctive bell that made it easier for a young person to hunt for her and return her to the barn for milking and the night.

 

As time went on, more land was cleared and farms needed fences to contain their animals. The enclosure of fields was first accomplished by using rail fences or ones constructed of piled up stones. My father told the story of helping to drive some cattle from their farm at Port Albert to that of his great-uncle’s farm north of Kintail, a distance of about six miles. Because almost all properties were fenced along the roadside, his job was to go ahead of the cattle and shut any gates that were open. Imagine where a bunch of cattle would end up in the wide open spaces along our roadsides these days!

 

To keep the peace, each municipality appointed fence viewers for their immediate area. These men were charged with settling any disputes neighbours might have had about payment for the construction of boundary fences or about the condition or disrepair of existing fences. In East Wawanosh Township in 1897, there were six men appointed as fence viewers. If their services were required, they received a payment of $3 per viewing. By 1962, the pay had not increased much and fence viewers Nelson Pattison and Wilfred Sanderson received $5 for each time they were called upon.

 

Not all disputes about fencing ended amicably.

 

In a case close to Clinton in 1891, a gentleman by the name of  August Kading returned home on July 1 to find that his bull had crossed neighbour Carl Brinker’s poorly-maintained fence. When Kading went to retrieve his animal, the younger man gave him a severe beating that caused much mental distress and confusion. Kading revived sufficiently to return home and was bedridden and under a doctor’s care for the next month. Kading lived in fear of his neighbour and, as a result, went to his barn in mid-August and hung himself.

 

Over the years, conflicts about the placement of boundary fences have caused their share of woes.

 

In Usborne Township in 1863, a farmer by the name of John Drought was tried for the murder of his neighbour, Thomas Quinton. Three months before Quinton’s death, he had called in a surveyor to settle the issue of the placement of a line fence between his and Drought’s land. At that time, Drought threatened Quinton with death if that fence was erected. Three months later, the matter came to blows and Drought crossed the fence to batter Quinton so severely that he died. A jury found Drought guilty of manslaughter and the judge sentenced him to three years in the provincial penitentiary doing hard labour.

 

In 1913, it was reported that a pair of farmers in Wentworth County had kept up a feud over the placement of a fence. When one party won a judgment in court, the other would appeal. Then there were counter-appeals and more time in court. This quarreling lasted for three years with the end result being that the two lawyers involved each owned a farm!

 

Sometimes the dispute between landowners spills out beyond their properties. In Grey Township, in 1889, two feuding neighbours were working at a third neighbour’s threshing bee when tempers started to flare. The words turned to blows with one man losing some teeth and the other man being charged with aggravated assault.

 

A clever farmer in Bruce County solved his fencing dilemma in a unique way. He bought his neighbour’s property assuring that the line between the two places would never be argued about again. He paid a pretty penny for his satisfaction by handing over $91 per acre, an unheard of amount in 1911.

 

Two farmers in Ashfield took their complaint the county assizes and their action was chided as being wasteful because it took up over a day of the proceedings, considering that the land in dispute was worth only $50. County assizes typically dealt with cases of a criminal nature. Similarly, in the Brussels area, Judge Doyle rendered a stern judgment in the case of two combative neighbours, stating that the dispute over 40 rods of fencing cost as much as it would to fence two, 100-acre farms, with money left over for a fireworks display.

 

Not all disputes ended in court or in physical harm. Hullett Councilor W.J. Miller displayed his “usual frank, yet tactful way” when he counseled two neighbours who were in disagreement over a fence placement and resolved the matter in “an amicable settlement”.

 

In 2024, the process for settling disputed fence matters lies in the hands of the municipal government. When a case arises, three knowledgeable fellow citizens are engaged to view the disputed boundary and to make suggestions. Of course, these people do not rule over the placement of fencing, that being a matter that needs the expertise of surveyors. All of these actions require payment of fees, a situation that sometimes causes the disagreeing parties to come to agreement on their own.