AN IMPOUNDING CASE.

Manawatu Herald, Volume III, Issue 82, 14 June 1881, Page 2

AN IMPOUNDING CASE.

:: » IMPORTANT DECISION. An enquiry was held at the Court House, Foxton, on Saturday last, before Mr Thynne, J.P., to consider a protest lodged by Mr Francis Loudon in regard to the impounding of his horse by the Ranger, Samuel Tansley. Francis Loudon, being sworn, stated that on the 10th June, the Ranger, entered a paddock adjoining his house, and drove the horso in question out of it to the pound. The Ranger or Edward Burr opened the gate, and when they had driven the animal ont left it open. He objected to paying the poundage money on the ground that clauses 23 and 24 of the Impounding Act expressly provided against the Ranger entering a person's land and impounding therefrom. Clauses read as follows : — "23. When any cattle being bona flde driven along a highway shall without the consent of or connivance of the driver break away and trespass on any unfenced land adjoining such highway, and the driver Bhall immediately exert himself to drive such cattle back into the highway, -and such trespass shall not be protracted any longer than the unavoidable necessity of the case may require the owner of such cattle shall not be liable to any of the penalties of this Act, nor shall the cattle be liable to be impounded in respect of such accidental trespass. 24. It shall not be lawful for any person to enter upon &ny land in the occupation of any other person for the purpose of seeking for or driving therefrom any cattle whether belonging to the person so entering or not without the permission of the occupier under a penalty of not more than five pounds nor less than five shillings unless such cattle shall be milch cows in actual use as such or the cattle Bhall be seen actually on cropped land or fenced land laid down with artificial grass. " His horse certainly was not a milch cow, and the Ranger had no right to remove the horse from the paddock. If such conduct was allowed, there was no guarantee that the horse would be safe at any time. In answer to Mr Thynne, Mr Loudon stated he saw the Ranger come out of the paddock, but did nob see him enter it. Mr Loudon asked his Worship, in dealing with the case, to take into consideration the fact that he had lost a lot of time in the matter of releasing the horse and having to attend the enquiry. Samuel Tansley, the Ranger, waa then sworn, and produced his authority to act from the Foxton Local Board. On examining it and the resolution passed by the Board, Mr Thynne remarked that he did not think the appointment would hold good, as the Ranger appeared to have been appointed some time before the resolution was passed by the Board. Mr Palmtr, clerk to the Board, pointed out that another resolution had been subsequently passed by the Board, having examined which, his Worship said he would waive that point and hear the Ranger's statement. Evidence continued — On the 10th inst I drove Mr Loudon's horse off a public road, fenced on both sides, leading from the Avenue Brilge to Mr Young's house; a section on one side has been recently fenced by Mr Futter ; I don't know who fenced the land on the other side of the road ; in driving the hcr3e to the pound the horse ran over the hill on the A.venue road to Mr Loudon's paddock, which it entered through a gap in the fence ; several posts, with the wires on, were lying flat on the ground, and the horse crossed these into the paddock ; I followed the horse in and drove it out of the padlock through the gate. By Mr Thynne — I first saw the horse on the railway line, at the crossing near the schoolhouse ; that is an unfenced road ; I have no power to impound off an unfenced road ; the road I took the horse from I consider is fenced. Mr Thynne said that it was important to know what was a road fenced on both sides. He did not consider if one or two sections merely were fenced on a road line that constituted a "road fenced on both sides." Mr Tansley said in that case the Avenue could not be called a "road fenced on both sides." as all the sections were not fenced. Me Thynne — Precisely so. I do not think there is a road of that class in Foxton. But where do you have powet to .enter a man's fenced land as you have done in this case ? Mr Tansley. — I consider it is unfenced land because there is a gap in the fencing ; and the gap has been there for the last two months ; I did not open the gate, nor did I see Burr open it ; at the same time, he may have opened it whilst I was driving the horse out ; I could have taken it out through the gap in the fence, but it was easier through the gate. Mr Thynne then asked the Clerk to the Board to show under what Act Mr Tansley hs.d been appointed. Mr Palmtr produced the resolution, whioh referred to an Act of " 1875," but stated that, the only Act he knew of was one of "1874." Mr Thynne said that whatever year the Act was passed in, ' nothing had been bronght before him to show there was an Act of 1875 in existence. He should have to deoide against the Ranger in this case on the ground that he had been appointed first by the Local Board on a resolution, which had since been declared by the Colonial Secretary to be no authority at all ; and that the subsequent resolution had been based on an Act of 1875, whereas there was no such Act in existence. He would advise the Board to pass a resolution putting in the proper year for the Aot. Another objection which he held to be fatal was the fact that in his opinion the horse had been removed from a road not fenced on both sides, and the Board should also obtain a legal opinion as to what was a road fenced on both sides. He thought also the better plan would be for the Ranger to Eroceed against owners of straying cattle y information. He would order that the 3s be returned to Mr Loudon. There were no oosts in the case.