SEIZURE OF A COW.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXVII, Issue 100, 30 April 1915, Page 7

SEIZURE OF A COW.

- POUNDKEEPER LOSES THE CASE His Worship, Mr 11. W. K. Konrick, S.M., delivered reserved judgment in the Magistrate’s Court on Wednesday afternoon (reports the Argus) in the case. Alfred Barlow, of Stratford (farmer) for whom Mr Cow appeared, v. ■lames McKenzie (Mr Morrison) and George Heaven (.'Mr Weir). The case, which had occupied the hearing of the Court for some time, was a claim for £8 10s, the value of a cow owned Ijv plaintiff and which, plaintiff claimed, was wrongfully seized and impounded hy the defendants. The following facts, His Worship held, were proved, (1) that plaintiff lost the cow on November 15th while having it among others into Eltham; (2) that the cow was found hy the defendant McKenzie on his farm on the same day, when he immediately gave notice to the other defendant, Geoige Heaven, the poundkeepor, in writing; (8) that defendant Heaven on receipt of the notice immediately posted a notice on the pound gate and inserted an advertisement in the newspaper in accordance with the Act; (4) defendant Heaven applied to a Justice for an order to sell the cow at an earlier date than the Act provided for, and obtained same on November 20th. The row was sold on McKenzie’s farm for £7 Isv .For the defence it tfift? contended that the defendants should not he joined if) the one action, and if joined the damages against each should be shown separately, for'the acts of each defendant were cpiite distinct from the other.

His Worship was of opinion that there was no evidence of the defendant McKenzie having done anything wrong, and he should therefore he dis. missed from the action. His Worship could not agree with defendant counsel' that plaintiff should have proceeded under sections 9 and 10 of the Act for it was not possible as plaintiff had heard nothing of the whereabouts of the row from the time it was lost until after it had fiqcn sold. Defendant Heaven did not comply with the requirements of the Act inasmuch as he did not advertise once at least in two consecutive weeks. Defendant Heaven had been requested to sell the cow in question, it being too wild to impound. Ho therefore should have

trictly followed the requirements of -motion 21, which required him to advertise once' a week for two consecutive weeks calling on the owner to remove the cow within three weeks. His Worship hold that defendant Heaven illegally sold the cow. His Worship accordingly allowed damages to the amount of £8 10s, with costs to plaintiff against defendant George Heaven.