The Bennington evening banner. (Bennington, Vt.) 19??-1961, 1909-10-01
JUDICIAL HuMoRIsrs
Opinion in Mincey-N. Bardburn, Sc S.
r. by Judges Wilkes of Tennessee.

NJ Wy Suu9co UhNco " chtSooSC.
This is a lawsuit arising out of the
unlawful acts of disorderly mule.
He was found lettering about the
streets Of Knoxville, without any ap-
parent business, no visible means OF
support, and no evidence of ownership
except a yoke on his neck. This yoke
was evidence that the mule had been
at some time in state of subsection,
hut did not indicate to whom.
Although he does not appear to
have been drunk or boisteTous, vigi-
liant officer of the police of the city
arrested him and took him to the lock
up The policeman was authorized
to do this by a city ordinance, which
was no doubt intended and well calcu
lated to preserve the lives of the peo-
pie and the good order of the city by
prohibiting mules from being loose
IN the streets.
The mule was arrested on the 7th
of September and was locked up (in)
the city pound. The poundkeeper did
not know who he belonged to, and
the mule made no disclosures of his
ownership. The poundkeeper. it ap-
inquired of the butchers il mule had
escaped from any one of them Why
he sould suppose that butchers
stall should be an appropriate place
to find out the owner of live mule
does not appear. The poundkeeper
further inquired of such country peo-
pie as he could find if they knew OF
any one who had lost a mule.
A farmer, who lived out about three
miles from the city, said that one of
his nelghbors had lost mule, and re-
quested that no advertisement be
made until he could see if the mule
was his neighbours. When the farmer
asked his neighbor If he had lost a
mule, he was told that unfortunately
he had not In this way five days
elapsed before any advertisement was
made. In the meantime the mule
was kept in close confinement and
refused to be interviewed.
On the 10Th of September, or five
days after the mule was arrested, the
advertised in the Knox
Vile Journal and Tribune that the
mule would be sold on the 18th, I'M
less called for and charges paid; and,
no one calling, the mule was sold
for cash, for 500, and one o.
II. Smith became the purchaser. The
costs and charges were paid out of
The proceeds of sale, and the balance
was left in the city treasury to be
called for by the owner.
What this balance was does not APP
pear 1t is stated in the record that
Inll Ia OF
er this means that there was no bal
ance, or that the amount was UNI
known and not material, is left in
doubt
Mr. Smith. the purchaser sold the
mule to Mincey, but for what sum
does not appear. Mincey, it appears,
bought the mule. in good faith, and
Hid not know that he had ever been
arrested or confined in the city lock
lp. or that he had been sold by the
city. So far as he knew the mule
had the usual good reputation of his
species.
In the meantime, Mr.. Bradburn, to
whom the mule belonged, missed him
from his corncrib. and supposed he
had gone to Sewer county, where he
luries, however, and among other
things went to telephone station to
inquire of the poundkeeper If he had
such a mule. 1t appeared, however,
that Central" was busy or gone to
dinner. and Mr. Bradburn could not
reach the poundkeeper He thereup-
on asked Mr. Clark to telephone for
him. Mr.. Clark reported that word
came back to him from the other end
Of the line that there was no mule
there. 1t does not appear who was at
he other end of the line, so that the
truth of this answer is not verified
The mule, however, did not return
10 Sewer county. but preferred to be
locked up in Knoxville. Mr.. Brad
burn did not see the advertisement in
the Journal and Tribune. Probably
ne did not take that paper, but read
he Sentinel.
Counsel says that the advertise
nent was put in an abscure place
Exactly what he means the court to
infer from that we are unable to see.
The court cannot judicially know |
here is anything obscure In any |
Knoxville paper, unless it be in the |
'eports of Supreme Court opinions, |
md these appear to be obscure only |
o the lawyers who lose their eases. |
After the sale, and plaintiff found |
tut where his mule was, he replevied |
him. The case was tried before the |
,ourt and jury In the court below, |
md plaintiff was successful, and de- |
endant has appealed; but he has |
)een paid back the money he paid |
or the mule, and the further proceed |
ngs do not appear to interest him.
The city comes in. however, by |
counsel and complains earnestly of |
he charge of the circuit judge. The |
earned trial Judge charged that an |
ordinance of the city which provided |
or sale Of animals impounded after |
,nly two days advertisement was UNI |
reasonable and invalid; that two days |
vas not sufficient notice to give, and |
sale under such advertisement |
would be void, and confer no title on |,
he purchaser, and he could commune
,ate none to party who bought |
rom him, even without notice.
The learned trial Judge also charg-
ID that the proceeding by the munich |
,ality to sell impounded stock, being |
summary proceeding, must be |
strictly pursued that the pound |
master should Immediately, upon I'M |
the animal, make the adver-
isement, and that If the mule was |
mponded on the 18th, and not adver-
Used till the 18th, it was not COM |
)liance with the ordinance, and a sale |
hereupon would be null and void, |
md communicate no title to the pur- |