Untitled

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume IX, Issue 977, 10 September 1881, Page 2

As the case Gruner v. Wilson, heard in the Resident Magistrate's Court yesterday was decided on a question of mere unlawful detention of animals in the pound, it is shorn somewhat of the importance it would have possessed had the right of the Borough to exact special damages, where no damages had been proved, been challenged.... From the evidence adduced it appears that Mr. Gruner’s two horses were impounded, and, on seeking to release them, a claim for special damages, or a special claim for damages, we know not which, was set up by the defendant. Mr. Gruner tendered the money “ under protest,” which was refused on that condition, whereupon he took proceedings to try the question. He has an order for the horses, but the real question at issue is no nearer" solution than before. The grievance, such as it is, is this : Under the Impo.uijtdyng ;A.ct JM scale of fees Only Can be forced forWr'diftary inipoundings, and, before damages can be claimed, they-must be proved to have been’sustained. Under the Borough Bye Laws it is competent for any one, allowing his animals 1 to stray in the public streets, to be proceeded against, notwithstanding he has paid fees for impounding. Some of these duplicates have been tried in the Court, and where successful, it was found that, in some instances, the costs were very onerous. Taking this into consideration, the Borough Council—while wishing to clear the streets of straying horses, &c., but did not desire to put persons to unnecessary e^enße—passed a byelaw wjpch compromised such offences by a fine of ss. in each case, plus the pound fees. That the action of Ithe Council was made in the best interests of the burgesses we doubt not; but its legality is still ©pen to doubt. We believe the Council has no power to pass a bye-law, which, in effect, is ultra vires. The Commission of an offence is so far anticipated, and -rendered supposititious, as to infer that a horse cannot possibly be at large without doing damage of some kind. The economical compounding for a breach of the Bye Laws is but little excuse for the imposition of an all-round fine. It was a settlement of this right of the Council that many persons, whose animals have been impounded, desired. But it is as well for them to remember that it is wise to let well alone. If the Council is pushed into a corner, and the abrogation of the Bye Law is compulsory, future delinquents will find the double process a most expensive kind of litigation—in some instances amounting to more than the impounded animals are worth. But, : ■ while we argue both sides of the question, we cannot shut our eyes to the fact, that it is not absolutely incumbent on the Council to taks proceedings under its Bye Laws. Our opinion has long been held that if a horse is merely straying in the streets, and has done no special damage, incarceration, and infliction of a tine on the owner, are sufficient punishment ; and no process should

! issue, outside the Impounding Act, but in the exceptional cases before alluded to. The present infliction is tantamount to a poll on the possessors of horses, and the “ new blood” in the Council may earn a little gratitude by its removal.