PAEROA IMPOUNDING CASE.

Thames Star, Volume XXVI, Issue 8080, 27 June 1895, Page 4

PAEROA IMPOUNDING CASE.

Paebqa, Tuesday. A rather interesting case under the Impounding Act. came before Messrs N; Kenny and J. McAndrew, J.P.V, at thf* Police Court to-day, when F. Alley brought an action against Tukukino, Hunia, and another native, claiming the refund of damages paid to the poundkeeper under prqtest, on thagrounds that the damages claimed, and which* had to be paid before, certain cattle were re« leased, WBre illegally charged, inasmuch as the land upon which the-alleged tres-s pass took; place was unfenced. Mr Kenrick appeared for the complainant, and Mr. McVeagh for the defendants. Mr McVeagh raised the point that the complainant had not given notice of his intention to complain to the Justices of the illegal claim for damages within the time prescribed by sections 9 and 10 of the Act. VMt Kenrick replied, and con* tended that the Act did not specify the time when the notice should be given, but only the time (10 days) within which action must be taken after notice had been given. He also maintained that no written notice had been given under section 11 of the Act, and as a consequence, the impounding was illegal from the commencement. After the evidence had been given, and argument on both sides concluded, the Bench decided that there was not sufficient evidence to connect the defendants as the parties who impdunded the cattle, it having turned out during the poundkeeper's evidence that he personally had not impounded the cattle, but his son. The case was therefore dismissed, each party to pay their own costs.