AN IMPOUNDING CASE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2342, 7 November 1908, Page 6

AN IMPOUNDING CASE.

A POINT OF LAW. JUDGMENT RESERVED. An interesting' impounding case was heard yesterday by Mr W. A. Barton, S/M., when Hugh /Binnie, of Ormond, proceeded against Wan. Jones, Ranger, on a charge of having, on October 5, illegally impounded 24 head of cattle. ‘Mr T. Alston Coleman appeared for the informant, and Mr J. W. Nolan Tor the defendant. Mr Coleman explained the information and in outlining the caso for his client, claimed that the. facts nere very simple. A Lay in the employ of informant -was instructed to take.cattle to water at the Waipaoa river, and they were, en route, seized by defendant. Hugh Binnie said that on October 5, at 9 a.m., lie sent his hoy to the laver to water cattle, and told him to go straight there, and back. There were 24 head of cattle, all milking cows, and the distance to the river

from his place was about IT miles. At- 9.40 a.m. he saw the boy again, and in consequence of what the bov told, him, he went out on the road and saw defendant driving the cattle along the road towards him. Witless asked defendant why he had taken

ino cattle, and defendant said’: “Don’t you talk to me; mind your own business.” Witness said to defendant that he had taken the critic illegally and. that he (witness) wished to pay driving fees .and trespass rates to recover the cattle, but did so under protest. Defendant asked for £3, but upon that amount being forthcoming, he refused to take it, and impounded the cattle. Witness accompanied defendant to the pound 'and released the cattle- about two hours later. To Mr Nolan: The river bounded his property, but he did not water liis cattle there owing to the danger of them getting bogged. The : anger had only complained to him on one occasion of his cat-tie grazing along the. roads on the way to and from water. No complaint was made by Air Foster, or a, man named White, about defendant putting his cattle on their property. He also released some of O’Sullivan’s cattle at" the time he released his own.

Patrick O’Sullivan, a lad of 1G yours, said that he remembered the •defendant impounding the cattle. Just on 9 a.in. informant told him to take the cattle to water, and he (lid so. He took the cattle to the river by one road and back by another, and on the return journey defendant came out of Mr Grayson’s house and seized the cattle. When defendant seized the cattle, they were on the shingle just coming out of _ the river, -and defendant said: “Now I’ve got a day’s wages.” Witness said, he was driving the cattle fast enough, and defendant threatened to hit him over the head witn Ins whip. To Mr Nolan : The cattle weis- not scattered -along either the '- nd or the river bed. There was goo:l fieri along the road. Stephen 0-’Sullivan said he saw the cattle leave for the river at 9 a.in., 'and being putin the pound at 9.45 a.m. The two roads leading to wire z:\er were about a quarter of a mile apait. Cornelius Neenan, poundkee.ier -at. Ormond, said that when derendant impounded the cattle he did not give a written description of the • attle. To Mr Nolan: Defendant s ave a description of the cattle, which was entered in witness’ book and signed by -defendant, who said he had impounded the cuttle for grazing on the road. Fie thought the cattle should have been brought back the same road as they were taken. It v, as about 2J miles the way the cattle had gone. This concluded the evidence for the informant and Mr Nolan claimed that under the section of the Act the information had been laid against the wrong person, as it must he thj poundkeeper only. As the matter stood he did not know what charge he -h-acl to meet. He could not see he had any case to answer. His. Worship said that it was claimed that the cattle had been taken from the hoy who was driving them to water. Mr Nolan said that he had evidence to. show that the cattle were not legitimately taken to water, and also other evidence disproving the statements which had been made on behalf of the informant. The information was laid -under a wrong section.

His Worship reserved his decision on the point of law raised. Wm. Jones, .ranger, gave evidence as to having impounded the cattle in question from the Bruce road. They were on the road about 10 chains from the river, and were straying over the road for a distance of eight or nine chains grazing. He could see nobody in charge, and- started to drive them away, and a few minutes afterwards the boy came along. Witness said: “‘What are you doing with your cattle here?” and the boy said he was driving them home. The boy said ho did not care if witness impounded the cattle, and helped witness to drive them for about a -mile. Informant came to witness and asked what were the driving fees, and witness replied that he was not quite sure, but thought about £3 4s. Informant said that under the -new Act witness was .compelled to give -up the cattle.. He refused to give up the cattle, and impounded them, signing the pound book at the time. He had cautioned informant a dozen times about turning his cattle on the road. There was no need for informant to take his cattle all the way to Bruce road to get water, which he could get within half a mile. To Air Coleman: When he first saw the cattle they were on the road where he gob them, and he had not seen them coming down- the other road to the river. He .did not know the cattle were straying until he found them. All the cattle-were on the road when he seized them, and not one of them was .at the fiver.

' Joseph Grayson said that lie Cived on the Bruce road. He saw defendant take the cattle from the road, where they were straggling. When defendant seized the cattle there was mo person in charge of them, hut the boy came from the river when defendant had; driven the cattle about 3 or 4 chains. This was all the evidence offered for the defence, and his Worship intimated that he would take time to consider ids decision, i •