
    Hamilton vs. Howard.
    1. The law defines what constitutes a legal fence; and there is no distinction made as to the different animals which are likely to enter into an inclosure, making the fence of one height for one class and another height for another.
    2. Neither can the average height of a fence, too low at some points and too high at others, be taken to decide whether it meets the requirements of law.
    3. Nor does the fact that a fence not up to the standard fixed by law will keep out other hogs than those of the plaintiff justify a trespass upon his hogs, even where notice has been first given.
    4. To an action for trespass committed upon stock while on the premises of the defendant, a set-off of damages to the crop done by the stock is not maintainable, where the fence around such crop was not a legal fence.
    5. Where all the evidence material to a case is not brought up to this court, alleged errors depending upon the evidence cannot be considered.
   Crawford, Justice.

(Howard brought an action against Hamilton, under §1445 of the Code, for a trespass in killing one of plaintiff’s hogs in an enclosure belonging to defendant. The latter pleaded the general issue and also the following special pleas : That the fence, though not a legal fence generally, was sufficient as to hogs (describing it); that though the fence was not five feet high it was nowhere lower than four and a half feet, and in some places was seven feet high; that the fence had been sufficient to keep out other hogs; that he gave plaintiff notice before killing the hog; and that he claimed a set-off for damages done to his crop by the hog.)  