THE IMPOUNDING ACT.

Gisborne Times, Volume IX, Issue 885, 8 May 1903, Page 3

THE IMPOUNDING ACT.

Tho Magistrate’s Court was occupied for some time yesterday hearing tho case of Diedrich Robcko v. Pene Mataora, a claim of DIO for tho value of pigs alleged to havo been killed by defendant. Mr R. N Jones appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr J. W. Nolan for the defend ant. Mr Jones said the case arose out of the Impounding Act. About March 2 6, 190l>, three pigs belonging to plaintiff wero destroyed by defendant. Presumably they

wero trespassing at the time when they I were shot, and it was assumed that the land was fenced. The Impounding Act gave authority to kill pigs if trespassing on fenced land, and for the purposes of the present case it was admitted tho land was I fenced. Under section 14 of the Act, if tiie pigs wero killed it went on to say tho occupier of fenced land might destroy pigs, but within 24 hours ho must send in writing a description of tho animals to the I owner, if known, or to the neureat police station, under a penalty of L'lo. Ilia Worship : The object is obvious, if proper notice is given tiie carcases may ho 1

Mr Jones : In this case they not only killed, hut cleaned them. Mr Nolan : We cleaned them at your request and hung them up for piaintifi. His Worship said that plaintiffs contention was that tiie faiiuro to give notice rendered tho destruction of the animals illegal. Mr Nolan said eounsol for plaintiff was harking up tho wrong tree. In Section 14 it wouid be seen that tho owner of land trespassed upon “may” destroy pigs—he could pleasef himself —but if ho did it he must give notice about it. If that notice wero not given he was liable to £lO 1 penalty. Counsel for plaintiff argued that, in addition to that Denaltv tho owner 1

tnac in auuicion io mat penalty too of tiie land was liable to tho full valuo of tho stock. It was not intended that defendant should be doubly punished for an oversight of that sort. It was not sot out by plaintiff that no notice was given. Notico sufficient to enable the plaintiff' to take his pigs away was given. Tho noncompliance with the Act was a penalty, and did not give plaintiff a right to sue, otherwise defendant would bo expected to tell plaintiff that ho was going to kill the animals

His Worship said that bo would take time to consider the question. Counsol having agreed for tho purposes of tho case that £5 was tho value of the animals, judgment was reserved.