WARNING TO FARMERS.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLVII, Issue 8108, 12 May 1906, Page 2

WARNING TO FARMERS.

ANIMPOBTANT IMPOUNDING DECISION.

On Friday morning Mr T. C. Hutchison, S.M., fixed the damages in the appeal, McHaffey v. Jury, in which case judgment was in March last reserved by His Honor, Mr Justice Edwards. This was an appeal from the decision of the Magistrate in dismissing a complaint for illegally impounding cattle The respondent had impounded the appellant's cattle for trespass, but in so doing had not delivered to the poundkeeper a written description of the cattle and other particulars required by section 11 of the Impounding Act, 1884. Mr Hutchen, who argued the case for the appellant, contended that the failure to give the particulars required rendered the respondent a trespasser ab initio, and the impounding I illegal.

Mr Quilliam, for tho respondent, arg-ied that the act of impounding was complete when the cattle were placed in the pound, and the failure to give tho particulars did not relate back to the impounding. The Magistrate, in announcing the Judge's decision, said it was a most important one. He wished to give a note of warning to farmers and others who might find it necessary to use the provisions of the Impounding Act. By this decision it was declared illegal to impound without strictly carrying out tho provisions of Clause 11. Three judges in Victoria had held that this omission was not sufficient to constitute an illegal impounding; but our jduges ruled to tho contrary. Farmers would do well to note that failure to comply with this section rendered them liable to a fine up to £SO. In this case, which really broke new ground, ho could not impose any heavy penalty. Counsel pointed out that there was no power to fine. Damages were claimed.

Mr Quilliam thought that farmers ought to be grateful to His Worship for the warning given. It meant that if a man took cattle to the pound and went away, and if the ownor released the cattle before a full description had been given to the poundkeeper, he was subject to a heavy fine. Mr Hutchen asked the Court to fix damages. Mr Quilliam said the appellant had now given his name to a leading case, and that was some compensation surely. Mr Hutchen did not think that of great value, though undoubtedly an honour.

The Magistrate allowed los dam. ages and lis Court costs.