IMPOUNDING A HORSE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2257, 31 July 1908, Page 2

IMPOUNDING A HORSE.

SETTLERS AT VARIANCE

A cuso of interest to sheopfinuors and others was hoard at the Magistrate’s Court yesterday morning, before Mr. W. A. Barton, 8.M., wlien Henry/Edward Kent (Mr. lHair).preceded against Robert Sin ton (Mr. Stock) for £2 2s. dam iges for the alleged 'wrongful obtaining possesion of u horse, and refusing to give up same without the payment of 2«. Air. Blair outlined the ease of his client, and referred to the recent tronblo between the' paties over a fonce. Unsuccessful attempts had been inado to have the old differences between the parties settled. Plaintiff, however, was compelled to seek the Magistrate’s decision in this case, which was one of trespass. Walter Whyte, Tiniroto, stated that he borrowed a horse from plaintiff in May last, and on June 7th lie found defendant in possession of the horse. Defendant said lie had impounded the horse, hut he (witness) had not authorised defendant to take the horse.

To Mr. Stock: Plaintiff told him that defendant had the horso. He knew that the horse had got away from his place and gone back homo, and defendant had told him that lie had found the horse on the road. Defomlant at first wanted to chargo 3s Gd .for impounding fee, but subsequently reduced this 'amount to 2s. The pound was over a mile away from where the horse -was found, hut defendant had not taken the horse to the pound, hut,to his stoek-yard. To 'Mr. /Blair: The occurrence was on a Sunday. Plaintiff hid lent him the horse to ride to town, and he had no right to use the horse 'after the preceding Friday. Ho got a receipt for 2s from defendant, who said that he got the horse at plaintiff’s gate, but lie did not mention 'anything about taking the horse to the pound. Mr. Stock contended that His "Worship had no jurisdiction under the Impounding Act. Illegal impounding must be shown by way of a complaint before two Justices and could not bo the subject of a civil action. After further argument by counsel, His Worship decided to hear defendant’s evidence.

Robert Sinton, defendant, stated that he found the horse on the road seven or eight chains from plaintiff’s fate. He thought it was plaintiff’s >rso, and told him that lie had put in his (witness’) yard, -Shortly after this Mr, Whyte came to see him, ami said, “It is not Kent you arc getting at, it is meKent has nothing to do with the horse.” Whyte then put 2s on the table, and said, “Take Is out of t/liat; that is the charge.” Witness replied that 2s was the charge, -as there was the driving to the pound, and when Whyte was going away ho left the’ money on the table. Mr. Whyte gave witness a receipt for the horse, and made no objection to paying the 2s, as ho said lie had ascertained that it was the legal charge. To, Mr. Blair: Ho was not familiar with the Impounding Act. The pound was over' a mile away from his house, and he took the horse there before 12 o’clock, driving it along the road. When he took the horse from the road it was not at the gate. No mention was made by either 'Mr. Whyte or witness of 3s Gd. Agnes .Sinton. wife of defendant, gave similar evidence as to the conversation with Whyte. Mr. Stock held that defendant was quite entitled to impound the hor'-, and quoted the Impounding Act in support of his contention. Whyte, lie held was the .party who should have brought .any action, as the horse was in his opssession: Mr. Blair contended that plaintiff was correct, in 'bringing the action. It was not brought under the Impounding Act, but was an action for trespass and wrongful detention. His Worship said that it was only a small case, but there was a- principle involved. Judgment would be reserved.