Fence feud ends in death, arrest

The Washington Times ^ | June 28, 2004 | Larry O'Dell

[ijcr]

BOWLING GREEN, Va. -- Lawyer and part-time cattle farmer John F. Ames got off on the wrong foot with his new neighbors in the 1980s when he invoked a 17th-century law to compel them to pay for part of the fence around his 675-acre estate.

[Bacon Man]

"You see one woman nekkid . . . you wanna see 'em all nekkid."

Honestly, how can you argue with that?

[cjshapi]

I suppose I can understand it in theory, but being a woman myself I don't quite share his enthusiasm.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

You can't even imagine how much Frost is praised to the hills here in New England. Yeeech.

I think it's that whole JFK legacy...thing.

And you know how those New Englanders afflicted with 'affluenza' can be about their JFK.

[thackney]

"You see one woman nekkid . . . you wanna see 'em all nekkid."

Honestly, how can you argue with that?

[Old Professer]

He was actually quite funny, my wife never did figure out the bit about the vet and artificial insemination because of all the bleeps.

[Bacon Man]

Point well taken. I'm gonna go throw up now. ;)

[citizen]

I wouldn't want to pay for the guy's fence, obscure 17th century law or not.

And the Supremes quite often don't find for the correct party, IMO.

Both of them perhaps are/were A holes. But surely it wasn't worth killing the guy for trying to retrieve his bull that busted through the fence.

[EggsAckley]

Show me where I EVER said anyone should have been killed.

You keep leaving out the point that the "victim" continuously destroyed the lawyer's fence, thereby allowing his own cattle to "trespass" on the lawyer's property. The bull had nothing to do with the fence going down. Brooks himself bulldozed it down repeatedly.

Do yourself a favor; read the article. You're twisting the facts and leaving out the facts that don't fit your opinion.

[Bacon Man]

I suppose I can understand it in theory, but being a woman myself I don't quite share his enthusiasm.

I don't think it was as much enthusiasm as it was an appreciation for the female form. ;)

[LRS]

As you probably already know, since Kentucky was once a part of Virginia, they share a lot in the way their old laws read. So, I thought I would simply post a part of the KY Revised Statute concerning fences and cattle, just for the heck of it (note that a lot of the material dates back to 1780's.)

---

256.030 Adjoining owners to maintain fence -- Liability for trespassing cattle.
(1) When a division fence exists by agreement, acquiescence or compulsion, under this
section or KRS 256.042, each party shall keep a lawful fence on his portion of the
line. If one party fails to do so, the person failing shall be liable for all the damages to
trees, grass, grain, crops, cattle or land the other party may sustain from the
trespassing of cattle over the division fence at the point at which the party failing
was bound to keep in repair.
(2) Either party to a division fence shall be liable for damages in case his cattle break
through or pass over the fence at any point the other party is bound to keep in
repair, only if the fence through which the cattle pass is a lawful fence.
(3) The party damaged shall have a lien on the cattle, as provided in KRS 256.080.
Effective: October 1, 1942
History: Recodified 1942 Ky. Acts ch. 208, sec. 1, effective October 1, 1942, from Ky.
Stat. sec. 1783.

256.040 Repealed, 1988.
Catchline at repeal: Owner may require adjoining owner to erect portion of fence --
Notice -- Erection at expense of other owner -- Lien.
History: Repealed 1988 Ky. Acts ch. 79, sec. 4, effective July 15, 1988. -- Amended
1978 Ky. Acts ch. 384, sec. 385, effective June 17, 1978. -- Amended 1946 Ky. Acts
ch. 47, sec. 1. -- Recodified 1942 Ky. Acts ch. 208, sec. 1, effective October 1, 1942,
from Ky. Stat. sec. 1784.

256.042 Action to require construction or replacement of a farm boundary line
fence -- Apportionment of cost -- Enforcement of lien.
(1) The District Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all actions arising under this
section or KRS 256.030.
(2) The owner of a parcel of real estate used for agricultural purposes may file an action
in the District Court to require the initial construction or replacement of a boundary
line fence or any portion thereof on the boundary between any parcel of real estate
adjacent to the real estate of the plaintiff.
(3) The complaint shall describe the boundary line which is the subject of the action; the
use of or the use to which the plaintiff's real estate is to be put; the specific reason
that an initial or replacement fence is needed; the type of fence and fence
construction that is proposed; whether an existing fence is to be removed; whether
vegetation or growth must be removed in order to carry out the construction; the
method proposed for removal; and the proposed disposition of the material that is
removed.
(4) The court shall determine if the existing fence is adequate or if no fence exists. If the
court finds the existing fence is inadequate or no fence exists, the court shall order
the construction of a new fence and shall find and order:
(a) The type of fence to be constructed based upon the use or proposed use of the
real estate. Any permanent type of fence construction commonly accepted in
the area may be ordered;
(b) If necessary, the removal of vegetation and growth from the boundary line or
fence row in order to efficiently construct the fence, and the method of
removal, including mechanical means;
(c) Disposition or piling of the removed material;
(d) Apportionment of the cost of the removal of the existing fence, the removal of
growth and vegetation and the cost of the construction of the new fence,
between the landowners, which shall be one-half (1/2) to each landowner
unless the court determines such apportionment to be unconscionable.
(5) The court shall grant the defendant a reasonable time after its order in which to
comply with its judgment by constructing a fence in accordance with its order on the
defendant's portion of the common boundary. If the defendant fails to comply, the
court shall authorize the plaintiff to carry out the terms of its order and the
defendant's portion of the cost pursuant to the order shall constitute a lien on the
defendant's property and shall bear interest at the legal rate.
(6) In all instances for purposes of maintenance of or construction of a fence on a
common boundary line, the boundary line shall be divided between the parties and
each landowner's portion shall be determined by assigning to him that portion of the
boundary line which is on the right when facing the boundary from that landowner's
real estate.
(7) The lien provided herein may be enforced in the Circuit Court according to law if the
defendant fails to satisfy the costs of the fence within sixty (60) days of the District
Court's order.
Effective: July 15, 1988
History: Created 1988 Ky. Acts ch. 79, sec. 3, effective July 15, 1988.

256.080 Liability when cattle enter through lawful fence -- Lien on cattle.
If any cattle enter into any land over or through a lawful fence, the owner or manager of
the cattle shall for the first trespass be liable to the owner or occupant of that land for such
damages to his trees, grass, grain, crops, cattle or land as he may have sustained by the
entry of the cattle, and for every subsequent trespass by the cattle of the same owner,
double damages. After giving the owner or manager of the cattle at least five (5) days'
notice, in writing, of the fact of two (2) previous breaches into the same inclosure by the
cattle of the same owner, the owner or occupant of the inclosure shall have a lien on the
cattle to indemnify him on account of any damages sustained by the third or any
subsequent trespasses of those cattle and may enforce his lien by action as in cases of a
mortgage lien.
Effective: October 1, 1942
History: Recodified 1942 Ky. Acts ch. 208, sec. 1, effective October 1, 1942, from Ky.
Stat. sec.

256.090 Liability when cattle break owner's fence and enter uninclosed land.
If the owner or bailee of cattle has a lawful fence, and his cattle break through or over his
fence and upon the premises of another which are not inclosed by a lawful fence, he shall
not be responsible for the first trespass, but shall be liable for all subsequent trespasses.
Effective: October 1, 1942
History: Recodified 1942 Ky. Acts ch. 208, sec. 1, effective October 1, 1942, from Ky.
Stat. sec. 1788.

[Kenny Bunk]

1. it's cool to justify all that with archiac "property rights" law.

2.What if Bill Gates moves in and builds a 1000 dollar per foot fence around his spread, would all his neighbors have to share the fence costs?

3.If guns are outlawed, are you going to obey that one?

4. Are you a blind law follower no matter how absurd or outdated it might be?

1. There is nothing "archaic" about property rights law.... or property rights.

2. Yes, if that were the law of the state. Why should he pay the full cost of keeping your cattle off his property? A judge is quite capable of deciding how much it would cost you to build a normal fence for containing your cattle, and that would be something like your share of the Bill Gates' fence.

3. Why throw this apple in with this basket of oranges? It was Ames who used a gun to defend (he thinks) his property. Judge and jury will tell the rest of us, and him, if his supposition was correct. The law will deal with him fairly, one presumes, just as it dealt with neighbor Brooks in ordering him to pay for his share of the fence, and for later damaging it (as he admitted).

4. Until any law, old or not, is changed by duly elected and duly constituted bodies, it is your duty as an American citizen, to obey it. If you don't like it, you still have to obey it, and are free to argue against it, and of course you are also free to break it, and also quite free to pay any penalty involved with breaking it, if and when you are caught, or reported.

At this point, no one, especially on this site, knows ALL the facts of the homicide. I suggest we all take a tall cool one and wait and see what the jury has to say, if it gets to a jury.

I would be loath to take sides on this one, just yet.

[wardaddy]

What would I do?

I'm 46 and 220 and 6'5" .

If a 74 year old man came at me with either a cattle prod or "stick", I would probably disarm him and at worst whup him.

Were I armed and were he one badass 74 year old (unlikely Jack Palance is next door), I have the discipline and shooting skills to dispatch him without likely having to kill him....and I sure would not need 6 shots for either.

* it should be noted that I get on well with my neighbors..even the lefties ...and we all look out for one another and so far...no homicides....of course none of us have moved in and started extorting money from our neighbors exploiting ancient husbandry law and being general buttheads anyhow.

** and yes...I am not a stranger to violence and have negotiated no killing folks out of hand before in my life when things got hairy. Life is not always SWAT TEAM....especially with geriatrics...I could be wrong...maybe you live in a tuff hood full of old crusties armed with cattle prods and what not.

if so...pardon me..lol

[LRS]

BTW- people should try to read:

http://www.oz.net/~hollin/pages/cowkeepfencing.html

(Deals with Virginia and fences...)

[EggsAckley]

GREAT post. Finally, a voice of reason.

[wardaddy]

yes ...we do not know every detail ASA, but that is hardly stopping the DuFarge brigade here from celebrating over an a$$hole killing cattle prod wielding granpa.

this must be the same crew that high fives when 20 SWAT jocks unload on a deranged person in the front yard armed with a butter knife.

nuts....some folks need killin no doubt, but in this case I sure don't see enough to justify dusting the old dude.

[hopespringseternal]

I have the discipline and shooting skills to dispatch him without likely having to kill him....and I sure would not need 6 shots for either.

Then your mental discipline, focus, and shooting skills pretty much make you one in a million. What channel is your shooting show on?

[wardaddy]

Some arsewipe with a history of provoking his neighbors kills a pissed off 74 year old who was armed with a prod or stick...took 6 bullets (I assume a wheelgun).

I need more than that to make a hero out of Ames for me.

I never liked bullies...color me biased on this one.

[wardaddy]

Oh, then unless one has a shooting show on OLN, then they should always shoot first over property disputes?

especially with grandpa.

get back to me when the jury is done.

LOL...try again.

*damn some folks will celebrate killing anything for any reason.

** btw, if you can't shoot some old 74 year old geezer well enough to disable him when he is armed with his cattle prod or stick without dumping all 6 shots in him then maybe you ought to get theyself away from the keyboard and to the range.

[EggsAckley]

I'm trying to figure out what thread you're reading. No one here is justifying killing a man over a fence. You need to calm down and read the thread a little closer. It's looking like you're just LOOKING for a reason to rant. Either that or A)you live in a parallel universe, or, B)you're just nuts.

[stands2reason]

After reading your post AND your tagine, you got me thinking that the Darvocet I took has some weird hallucinogenic properties...