The Feilding Star. Oroua & Kiwitea Counties Gazette. Published Daily. WEDNESDAY, MAY 16, 1906. THE IMPOUNDING ACT.

Feilding Star, Volume XXVII, Issue 244, 16 May 1906, Page 2

The Feilding Star. Oroua & Kiwitea Counties Gazette. Published Daily. WEDNESDAY, MAY 16, 1906. THE IMPOUNDING ACT.

Some time ago in New Plymouth the Stipendiary Magistrate dismissed a complaint by one settler against another because tne latter htfcTinot delivered to the Poundkeeper, when impounding certain cattle for trespass, a written description of the cattle and other particulars as required by section \1 of the Impounding Act of 1884 which reads as follows :—••'No cattle shall be impounded under the provisions of this Act, except in the nearest accessible pounoVJjO the place where such cattle were foSnd trespassing, and the person by whom or by whose order any cattle are sent to the pound shall 4ypaaily«rwrtfingto the Poundkeeper, the deecnption, number, brands or apparent brands and ear marks of such cattle, the place where they were found trespassing, and the amount of damage claimed for such trepass according to tbe provisions of this Act. and, so far as tbe parson impounding can state tbe same tbe name of the owner of such cattle, and such animals may be either led, conveyed, or driven to such pound." An appeal was lodged it being contended that the failure to give the particulars required rendered the respondent a trespasser f torn the begin* ning, and the imponnding illegal, while for tbe respondent it was argued-that the act of impounding was complete when the cattle, were placed in the pound, and the failure to give tbe particulars did not relate back to tbe impounding. Tbe appeal was heard by Mr Justice Edwards. and. in announcing his decision in favour of the appellant, Mr Hutchison, 8.M., 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 tbe Impounding

Act. By this decision it was declared illegal to impound without 6triotly carrying out the provisions of clause 11. Three judges in Victoria have held that tbis omission was not sufficient to constitute an illegal impounding ; but our judges ruled to the contrary. Farmers would do well to note that failure to comply with | this Bection renders them liable to a i fine up to £60. As this awe broke new ground a light penalty only was imposed, but now that the decision has been made known, ignorance of the law will not constitute an excuse for future omissions to comply with the requirements of the Act.