The writing of this article is slanted against Ames. It looks to me like the victim had been tearing down fences maliciously, and there are some people who take property rights very seriously. Me, for one.
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.