CORRESPONDENCE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume XI, Issue 1333, 24 July 1883, Page 2

CORRESPONDENCE.

j We •urselves reaponwble opinions expressed Vy our correspbriuonti]. :o: • > - - THE-TMPOUNDING ACT. TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—A very important question was raised in tfw oa»9 Quinlan CiUinonj recently brought before the Court, as to the liability of pound keepers, ■ only demanding, but exacting, the damages, that might bn placed on; any, anjipalLcommitted to their charge’ The Tmpdu'ndiiig'Act’’tn 'several ol the .clauses points out where damages may be legally claimed, biit certainly does not in any way imply that th® poundjteeper is bound, not only to demand, but to insist on payjnent of; the damages so claimed within the boundaries of the town. There is no provision made* whereby the impo.undina party claiming damages, is called upon to produce testamentary evidence to the poundkeeper, that the damages he claim are legal. He cm put damag’-s oh to any amount he likes, fair, or unfair^,and toe poundkeeper in the absence of anything to the contrary, must receive’ his personal appraisement of the value-fif tlbtte; but should the poundkeeper be- subsequently informed that the' damages so'claimed are not legally obtainable,! and has evidence submitted to him Which would conclusively ’prove,' that the damages charged, are not only excessive, but:altogether illegally claimed, there is nothing in , tfie, Act which would prevent him. frpm releasing the. beast, upon payment. of the pound fe.eaand changes, and allowing the parties concerned,to settle tire question of damages, b^t'^.ep : to e^ e^ Vftß / • e jto ei \ Q i . personal .arfangepiept, arbitration, /or,. leg,s; process.. There in Actj whiqh say? to* 4 - Ae even.dejnand, > alpne ejact. thq dam changed, tharpiQte j<ic <jmr thathe va'U n hq sp phpq^e..jreleas ( ft jhc. aribpxl vyl(rh ’ iil-j fees ape paid./ Tbe 'quoiiioii di' not for him tp .. He has no i iglxi* to constituteJuuwelljudge and jury r belweiju

the two par™n.i i| when the impounder jlautefee 8 > and the owner infest toe clMifcj to b not pi§ husbueiW— A, x#t awges this rigXtte&ie d gboa ftrthe other, I "must shre.fofo the questioiOetweeiHfrcnßeTvcito Should the pounctwjpor-’ refuse or fail to I inf sifo|on Ihe amount Being paid, the impdundlr. capnoi projeed against him ; therefore\JjjFn tiiftx’Samages are disputed or are not cbimiblej and yet the poundkeeper still elicits to not only de•iwmil bwfcisgflrti the ■ amount. he is certainly exhibiting a most decided bias, an I is altogether exceeding his duty in so withholding possession -from-toe-owner e*! agont- his.pound -teea,. L aud.. Charges liavfag tendered 4 . JiA ndt'Wnj comnofi/d -to detain.” On tiffs point three ’ij , .np reHsonftble doubt. It is very clear that i the impounding parly can say whiit he pleash,’ "and charge what he likes, lot the sum be pvar so'high, and is not compelled to provr to the poundkeeper that he is doing all this legally. -WelL suralj.the.qtqer .party lias equally a right to deny all tiffs, antf it was never intended to make the poundlreeftor the arbiter between th • two, or to -decide which is right. No, most certainly not. It. -thete; fore,.remains that when tiie damages Ito di>/ ihjted, he should, without a shadow of doubt, glVejupthe animal upon receiving his own fees and charge*. If, otr the oontraryv hei determines to exact the-damages claimed, and refusesfo give up thb annual;\ht clearly t«|Buines the position of tire party so charging /abd jfffOHid,' therefore, b® madb.-to* boar any consequences resulting from so arbitrary, an act.. By his detention of-tire aniijjj*!,. he L m 'krs himself most particularly the agent of the muqh persot al inconvenience and loss and" -hotild ftS h° <if ''ompelledi. by -1 he hold, him Self liable when lie determines so to do, unaeqiuwttt6)LM he legality of the impounders charges. j r‘ I ani, faf A CIVIB.