Adams v. Morrow.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume II, Issue 291, 27 April 1889, Page 2

Adams v. Morrow.

ILLEGAL IMPOUNDING. This was a complaint laid by Wm. Adams against Edward Morrow, for that Morrow did, on the 10th April, 1889, illegally impound a horse. Mr Day appeared for the complainant and Mr DeLautour for the defence. The complainant stated that on the morning of the 10th of April he was driving three horses across Lytton Road from one paddock to another. Two horses went into the other paddock, and the third went up Lytton Road. Complainant then went through another paddock to get ahead of the horse. While he was driving the horse back, the defendant came up on horseback, and said to complainant “ Whose horse is this ? ” Complainant replied " Mine.” The defendant then said "It is mine now,” and drove it to the pound. Mr DeLautour, for defendant, admitted that Morrow was not a person authorised by the Borough Council to impound off the roads. The defendant then stated that he saw this horse on the Lytton Road, Adams being in the paddock, about 40 yards away. When Adams saw Morrow driving the horse, he rushed through the fence and tried to rescue the horse. Adams was not driving the horse. If he had been, he would not have impounded it. What he did was under Mr Cannon’s instructions. Henry Cannon stated that he authorised defendant to pound horses for him as ranger. Mr DeLautour argued that the facts were all in favor of the defendant, and that the defendant’s evidence was more probable and reliable than that of the complainant, that Mr Cannon was quite within his powers in employing servants to pound for him off the roads, and that any person walking along the roads seeing a stray beast could drive it to the pound. Mr Day argued that the facts stated by Adams were the more probable as Adams had, immediately on releasing the horse, given the notice required under Section 9 of the Impounding Act, while the circumstances were fresh in his mind, and that the defendent had had time since then to think what he would say in order to get out of the matter. That Mr Cannon had no power whatever to employ servants to pound off the roads, but was bound to do the work himself. That the Borough Council could not be held liable for the acts of Cannon's servants, although they might be held liable for Cannon's own acts. That the Impounding Act specified who could impound, and under what circumstances animals could be impounded. The Bench, in dismissing the complaint, stated that the probabilities were in favor of the defendant, but as the case was one of great hardship to the complainant no costs would be allowed.