The Hastings Standard Published Daily. MONDAY, AUGUST 3, 1896. THE IMPOUNDING QUESTION.

Hastings Standard, Issue 84, 3 August 1896, Page 2

The Hastings Standard Published Daily.

MONDAY, AUGUST 3, 1896. THE IMPOUNDING QUESTION.

For the cause that lacks assistance, For the wrongs that need resistance, For the future in the distance, And the good that we can do.

Complaints have been rife for some considerable time past in consequence of the action of the members of the Borough Council in framing an impounding bye-law, which ia carried out in a manner not apparently intended. It is indeed unreasonable to suppose that a person should be punished twice for the same offence. When a horse is found wandering about the streets the borough ranger eertainly does his duty by impounding the animal. When notice is given the owner the impounding fees are paid, and that should be a sufficient deterrent ; but in a few days the said owner receives a summons that he has to appear at the Magistrate's Court to answer a charge for breach of the borough bye-laws; he appears, and if it is his first offence he is convicted and discharged. If it is his second or third offence, however, he is mulcted in a fine and costs. The surrounding circumstances of the case are of course considered by the Bench, but it is often a difficult matter for the owner to prove that he is not to blame to a certain extent. But that is apart from the question at issue. At the last meeting of the Council a petition, signed by 180 burgesses in favor of a change in the impounding bye-law was received, and after discussion the Mayor stated that he had the opinion of the borough legal adviser on the question, and according to that authority if cattle were impounded prosecution must follow to comply with the Act. Of course this settled the question so far as certain Councillors were concerned, and the matter was allowed to drop. It may not be generally known that the Council benefits by these prosecu-

tions, inasmuch as the accumulated fines go into their coffers. If this is the reason why an alteration is not made, then we say the Councillors are neglecting their duty to the ratepayers or allowing such an injustice to be done. No law should punish a person twice for one transgression. -It is understood that at the next meeting of the Council the question will be again brought forward, when it is to be hoped that it will be considered in an impartial manner.