POUNDKEEPER IN COURT.

Hawera Star, Volume XLIX, 31 August 1929, Page 10

POUNDKEEPER IN COURT.

RETENTION OF A BULL. SPECIAL TRESPASS FEE. SUMMARY ACTION NECESSARY. A demand for £lO made by Turake Maim, a Maori resident of the Oeo district, when impounding a hull alleged to have trespassed, upon his property, led to the appearance, in the Manaia Court yesterday of the Manaia poundkeeper, Alexander Merrde, who pleaded not guilty to a Charge of demanding fees and rates not authorised by the Impounding Act. The charge wa;s preferred on the information of the owner of the animal, J. Minhdn.nick, whose property adjoins that of Maim. Disposal of the case involved a. debate between two well known counsel and the careful examination ol’ the Act by Mr R. W. Tate, S.M., -who expressed • sympathy with pound keepers who had to endeavour to interpret certain sections. The Act was a notoriously difficult one, nearly all of its sections dating back to 1884 and requiring revision, said Mr Tate. Mr P. O’Dea appeared oil behalf of Minhimiick. ,The poundkeeper was not represents ed by counsel When the case wais called, font during the proceedings Mr A. G. Bennett, legal adviser of the Manaia

Town Board, intimated h© would appear “amicus curiae” in an endeavour to assist in solving the question before the court. J U RiISDICTJ ON EXCEEDED.

Mr O’Dea submitted that the facts were that on Wednesday Turake Manu, impounded Minihinnick’s. bull and instructed the pouudkeeper to demand before its release the payment of £lO .damages in respect of the trespass of the animal on Mann’s land. The ordinary fees were offer©! to. the poundkeeper who, however, refused to release the bull until the £lO was paid. The animal was still held. Mr O’Dtea submitted that to make such a demand was not within the province of a poundkeeper. Though a special trespass rate, in the case of entries of not exceeding £lO was provided for it involved l the institution of summary proceedings as specifically stated in the section. The poundkeeper had no right to. set himself up as the tribunal and hi demanding payment of the special trespass fee had committed an offence, continued Mr O’Dea. A penalty was not sought, hut an intimation from the court that _ the pound keeper had exceeded his. jurisdiction was requested'. Dealing further with sections of the Impounding Act, Mr O’Dea stated that in any event the special fee. applied only in eases of trespass on lands fenced within the meaning of the. Fencing Act. | He contended that Mianu’s land was not so fenced.

OFFER, BENI ED. Mi- Bennett denied that an offer of the ordinary fee,* had 'been made as suggested. The magistrate intimated that the point did not merit argument, the guestion, at 'issue being • whether the poundkeeper had Ibeen right in refusing delivery until the special £lO fee was paid. M.r Bennett contended that it was the duty of the poundkeeper to hold an an i mail untilL l a trespass fee was paid, if .such was demanded by the land occupier on whose property a trespass' had been committed. A poundkeeper could not be expected to know whether the land in question was legally fenced. Trespass rates payable in respect of impounded! cattle should be paid in tire first instance t 0 the poundkeeper. Making an examination of the Art, the magistrate pointed out that in re-

TECHNICAL OFFENCE! ONLY. ‘•You have todhmiealllly committed an offence, hut I aim sure you did not do so intentionally,” said t'h© magistrate addressing the defendant. Defendant: 1 have held up to £5 previously to settle for damage by trespassing stock. Why should there he an exception in another case? The magistrate '■ Interpretation of the Act is not easy. Here we have Ixad two lawyers discussing it for orveir halllf an hour and they are not certain concerning (it. When landholders complain that they have suffered l damages, however, you can tell' them to go to court. .1 n the present instance the • poundkeeper could hand over the bull on payment of. the fees under the schedule. That could he agreed upon by counsel, continued Mr Tate. Defendant had been innocent of any wrongful intention in thejnatter and costs would not be awarded against him said the magistrate in reply to Mr o’Deals application. O'n the announcement 'by counsel that 15s (id had been agreed upon as the impounding fee, the magistrate dismissed tre charge and directed that the animal be released on payment of that amount , j