RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, TOKOMAIRIRO.

Bruce Herald, Volume III, Issue 76, 21 September 1865, Page 4

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, TOKOMAIRIRO.

Friday, September 15th. Finch v. Henderson. — Adjourned to Tuesday, at request of defendant.

Tuesday, September 19th

Finch v. Henderson. — This was an action brought against defendant, the Poundkeeper at Wiiipori, to recover damages for his refu*in°- to release iour head of cattle, on the lawful pound fees being tendered to him Mr Gillon for plaintiff; Mr Jones for defendant. John Finch received a notice, by post, on the 7th instant, signed by defendant, telling him that four head of his cattle were in the pound. Next day, in company with James Finch, he went to Waipori, and saw defendant. Told him he had come for the cattle, and asked pound fees. Defendant said they were L2, and witness tendered the money. Defendant then asked for L4 more, for ranger's iee, which witness refused to pay, and had to leave without the cattle. Saw them in a paddock. Knew them to be his. Waipori was eighteen miles away, and the two of them were the whole day absent. Had not seen the cattle since.

Cross-examined : The money tendered was in two LI bank notes ; not gold or silver. It was put on Henderson's table. The Ranger by whom the cattle were impounded was present, and told Henderson if he released the cattle he would hold him responsible for the L4.

lie-examined : Henderson did not object to receive the note?, or ask for gold. He only wanted four more. Notes were the usual things to pay accounts with here. James Finch and Peter Peterson gave corroborative evidence.

Mr. Jones moved for a non-suit, on the ground that bank notes for L2 were not a legal tender, and that the cattle had been taken good care of, and not injured by the impounding. He submitted the Poundkeeper was justified in what he had done by the 16th Clause of- the Ordinance, and that the plaintiff's remedy was asainst the person who impounded the cattle. Mr Gillon pointed ont the irregular notice which had been sent of the impounding, and the irregular manner in which the Pound was managed. As to the tender, no objection had been made at. the time. His client only wished to recover a sum sufficient to protect him from loss and to act as a warning t<, Poundkeepers for the future. Had he wished, he con'.d have p oceeded against the defendant for a penalty of L2O for neglect of duty as Poundkeeper. as well as for damages. His Worship held the Poundkeeper totally unjustified in what he had done, as the law clearly explained the duties of the office. The non-suit points tie would overrule, and give judgment for L4 damages, and costs, L2 18s.