ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE

Dunstan Times, Issue 475, 26 May 1871, Page 2

ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE

IMPOUNDING &c.

(to the editor of the dtinstan times)

I Sir,—The extension of agricultural settlement, and the increase and dispersion of herds of cattle throughout the country have caused the subject of trespass to become of . great interest and importance to the com- , munity. ' Fromthe proceedings in the numerous j cnees brought before the local courtfv it i*

very evident tint very vague and various notions are entertained on the subject of the law of trespass, and on the legal rights and obligations of individual settlers in regard to it. This doubtless is the result of the multifarious character and consequent uncertainty of colonial legislation. From the report in alate number of your paper of the proceedings in the Magistrate’s Court at Clyde, in the case of Eochfort v, Messrs. Turnbull, I infer that the plaintiff is owner of cattle which were allowed to stray and break into a paddock on the Iluu held under depasturing base or license by the Messrs. Turnbull. That Messrs. Tu-nbufi drove these cattle to the Pound, which the Court decided was an illegal act, because the paddock was not sufficiently fenced. If the fence had been good, it appears that the decision of lire Court would have been reversed.

The right to impoim I should not ho made contingent on the con it ion of a fence nor r en on its existence, but on the fact of the tvsspass. This principle is recognised hy the common law, and is consonant wirh the original purpose and object of impounding establishments, and with the dictates of reason and equity. If cattle are allowed to stray, by neglect of the owner, he is jus ly resp ms bio for injury done by them to the property of others. On'bim devolves the primary duty of confining them by a “ substantial fence ” on his own property, or of tending them. The decision of t e Court—though teehnica'ly correct in respect to the Impounding Ordinance, is unjust in principle. It absolves the owner of cattle from all obligation and expense of herding them, an i throws that duty on his neighbor, who not only has no interest in the produce or profit of the cattle, but suffers injury, by their trespass, to his own property. Under these circumstances I think the case above referred to would have been more equitably decided by an award of one farthing damages, and the liberal! u of the cattle from the pound. I am, &c., AGRICOLA. May IG, 1871.