An Impounding Case

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLVII, Issue 7945, 7 October 1905, Page 2

An Impounding Case

The S.M. K ave his it serve, 1 decision on I'liday morning in the ease of Jessie Mary Mebaliy v. William Henry Jury, l.ie plaintiff alleging that seven c.il lie were unlawfully impounded coinr.iry lo lb.' provisions of the Act, in thai the particulars required l.y thal sii'lii,, were not specil'c-d lo Ihe poundkeeper in writing, and claimed an order for ia damag, s and the refund of IDs paid to release the cattle. No uucstioii was rajs ( ,-| in the complaint as io the trespass rales deniai.iU. IheS.M. upheld the Conclusion he had come to in a former case I hat the, omission- to specify such particulais did not make Ihe impounding illegal. One of the particulars required to be given, nainelv, the damage demanded, was in itself made aground for complaint under M-ilim in. If the omission to stale Ihe particulars made the iiunoiiiidi.ig iii, ( ,al, there was no necessity and no meaning in making one of them a sieond cause of complaint. A Victorian case —where ihe law was on all fours with ihe New Zealand law—shc.Wtd that the only questions wb'ch the Justices could determine were whether the can tie were or were "not trespassing; whether Ihe impounding was or was mantel foi Hie trespass of Ihe catlle having been impounded in a pound not being the nearest accessible pound ; anil whether the rates demanded for ihe trespass of ihe calcic were or were nol excessive. It was only in one or more of these cases that compensation could he awarded 15 Hiesummary mode of procedure lo the owner of catlle impounded. The decision in Hie New Zealand case Rangi v. Reeves Was that a civil action for damages lay against the person who had impounded ctillle without complying with I lie re|iiiremenls lor section 11. Holh the Victorian and New Zealand cases agreed upon Ihis point. The complaint was therefore disIllissciU .Mr Hint-hen appealed hi Hi.- com-I'l-mianl and Mr (JuiHiam. for tl lc defendant, I