Gisborne Pound Troubles.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume II, Issue 263, 21 February 1889, Page 3

Gisborne Pound Troubles.

At the Borough Council meeting on Tuesday 1 night, a long report was received from Messrs ' Finn and Chriep, solicitors, on the late impounding case, judgment in which had been given against the Council. Mr Cannon, poundkeeper and ranger, being present, the Mayor thought it would be advisable to first hear his answer to the charges which had been made against him by Mr Beswick. Mr Cannon said that with regard to Mr Swick’s complaint to the Council he was only sorry that Mr Beswick was not present to hear his (Mr Cannon’s) version of the matter, as all the statements were false. In tie first place it was not a case of illegal 1 in pounding, as the horse had been taken off the footpath in Custom House street. Mr Seswick stated that the horse was tied with etout three feet of rope to the tree, and could net possibly get on the footpath. His reply vts that the tree was only 2ft 9in from the fcitpath, and that when the ranger took the horse away it was grazing on the footpath jui outside the drill shed, and therefore the irnjounding could not be illegal according to the 17th section of the Act. Mr Beswick next insimated that the horse had been damaged. With regard to that all he had to say was Vhat when his man found the horse its leg ~s bleeding and it also had a sore back. .Beswick himself had admitted he had not the horse—it was not his property and been tied to the tree by his son. Mr Beswick objected to pay the sustenance fee, although he did not come for the horse till after five o’clock, and not before .four as he had represented to tire Council. The whole statement was false. Mr Beswi-jk had called a man to see him pay the fees under protest, and that man could prove what hour it was. While his man was getting the horse from the pound, Mr Beswick had called him all the rogues and thieves he could lay his tongue to, | The Mayor considered that the question which wanted answering was whether the horse was released before four o’clock. If that was so then no sustenance fee could be charged, Cr Whinray said Mr Beswick had informed him that application had been made for the horse before four o'clock, bat it was after five before he (Mr Beswick) went and paid the fees. The Mayor said it would be better for the Council to receive Mr Cannon's reply in writing, Mr Cannon : The charges are a tissue of falsehoods from beginning to end. He would also, he said, like to state that the horse had been fed on the most wholesome hay, He then referred to the late case and maintained that the decision was not justifiable, Had the action been brought against himself he should certainly have appealed against Mr Booth’s decision, and he drew the Council’s attention to the marginal note lin the Act, which he considered perfectly plain on the matter. In reply to Cr Dunlop Mr Cannon said that he had charged Is a head driving fecit would not be workable otherwise. If a mob of cattle were impounded they might each belong to different people, and if only a a shilling a mile could be charged for the lot he would have to go into fractions every time to decide how much each person owed; besides more labor was required in proportion to the number of animals to be driven. He further pointed out that there had been a law Suit with a Mr Quinlan, some years ago, and that Cr Tueker had moved a resolution, to the effect that the Council would not he held liable for the actions of their ranger. He (Mr Carmon) still understood he was held liable ' for all law suits and thought that the last action should have been brought against himself. He differed entirely from Messrs Finn and Chpsp when they said that the Council wgre liable for the actions. He thought that .ha. was rupoatihle for all oosts tnTOrred in any case, and he was willing to pay the judgmetit and costs that had been obtained *“ *? *“• •**>«"» he would hot pay the

Cr Lucas thought that Mr Cannon should be held responsible for all costs, if for any—there could be no division in the way he wished.

The Clerk said the matter had been gone fully into when the Impounding Act of 1884 came inter force, and it was decided that the ranger was to receive all fees, he being held liable for actions at Jaw, etc.

Cr Lewis said Mr Cannon was showing the true spirit of the agreement—he had known the exact position which he had taken up, and did not shirk his responsibility. He did not think the Council could expect Mr Cannon to pay their solicitor’s fees, seeing it was a cost he would not have incurred himself.

The Mayor said there was no option in that respect—the Council had been considered the proper party to sue, and they had been put to the expense. A person had to be employed to defend the Council, as they could not attend in a body. Cr Dunlop thought the ranger should be under the direct control of the Council—in face of the numerous complaints that bad been made there ought to be some easier way of deciding what foundation there was for them.

Mr Cannon said no man liked to have his horse impounded—if they listened to every I trivial complaint they would be inundated with others of a like nature. Cr Lucas moved that a committee consisting of the Mayor, Councillors Townley, Joyce, Coleman, and the mover, be appointed to take into consideration the whole question of impounding in the Borough, with a view of effecting improvements in the present system ; Mr Cannon to attend, if it were thought necessary. In doing so Cr Lucas said the arrangement was a most unsatisfactory one. The ranger received all fees and the Council were then sued for illegal impounding—they being held liable for his actions. If the Council were receiving the whole of the fees , then no objection could be made, and he i thought the best course would be to have a ranger appointed at a fixed salary. The Council should have the full of the pound, and that was one of his objects in proposing the motion. The Committee would be able to go into the whole matter and make the necessary arrangements for taking over the pound. The present position was an I absurd one, and he thought the Council should receive all the fees collected, enabling them to have funds in hand to meet any law suits, Cr Coleman having seconded the motion, it was carried unanimously. It was agreed that the Committee should meet at 2 o'clock on Thursday afternoon. [TO THZ EDITOR.] Sib, —Some discussion was caused by the sharpness of the borough ranger in impounding Mr Beswick’s horse under circumstances so annoying that it was clear the Impounding Act was never intended as an authority for such sharp practice, but I have myself been, or rather nearly was, the victim of what I should be inclined to express in terms that you would not care to publish. Being on a quiet and manageable horse, «and requiring something to eat before I started out on my ride, I got off my horse, left the saddle and bridle just as it was, and allowed the animal to have a bite of grass while I went inside the house for a few minutes to get a little food for myself, but when doing so I told a boy who was at hand to keep a watch on the horse. I had only just sat down when along came the ranger, who smartly caught the horse and want off with him, paying no heed to the boy. The latter, who was only standing a few yards off at the time, rushed in to tell me what had happened, and running out I quickly caught up to the ranger. I need not detail what transpired, but I got my horse back, small

thanks to the man’s generosity. What I have to complain of is the contemptible method employed to increase the funds of private persons, and generally to harass those who have the misfortune to be the victims. I do not think laws were intended to be used for such purposes, but one does not cars to lose time and throw money sway to have these things tested $ so I take this means of warning others. —I am, &o, Impost.