The Ocala banner. (Ocala, Marion County, Fla.) 1883-194?, 1909-10-22
IN THEMATTER OF AMULE
n Mark Twain on the Bench-Judge Wilkes of Tennessee
Hands Down an amusing Opinion

nicate none to party who bought
from him, even without notice.
The learned trial Judge also charg-
ed that the proceeding by the muni-
cipality to sell impounded stock, be-
ing a summary proceeding. must be
strictly pursued; that the poundmas-
ter should Immediately, upon i'm
pounding the animal, make the adver-
tisement, and that if the mule was
impounded on the 9TH, and not adver-
tised till the 18th, it was not a compli-
ance with the ordinance, and a sale
Hereunder would be null and void,
and communicate no title to the pur-
chaser, and ne could convey none to
his vendee; that, no matter if the
poundmaster made the delay with
good intentions, hoping to find the
owner, it would furnish no excuse.
The cit yattorney insists that this
is requiring too great degree of dill
igence on the part of the poundmas-
ter, and that a reasonable delay will
not vitiate his sale, especially when
that delay is caused by trying to find
the owner.
The argument is that the word sim
mediately,' as used in the ordinance,
does not mean 'instantaneously; "
that the poundkeeper must have suf-
ficient time to shut the pound gate, so
as to keep the mule in, before he
starts to the printing Office; that. af-
ter he does start, he may proceed in
a brisk walk, and is not required 10
run; that after he gets there time
must be allowed to set up the matter
in type, and there must then be a de-
lay until the hour when the paper is
printed. and ready for distribution;
and that the poundkeeper is not re-
quired to get out an extra.
We are satisfied the learned trial
judge did not mean to require such
dispatch as this, and without under
taking to say how rapidly the pound
master must proceed, we are of opin-
ion that, under all the facts of this
case, there was no such unreasonable
delay as would render the sale void.
Now, if the mule was the Larty
complaining, the court would feel dis
posed to say the delay was too great,
as it does not appear that the mule
had anything to eat during his stay
as the city's guest. But neither the
city nor the owner has any ground
of complaint.
1t is said by counsel that the other
question presented is an exceedingly
important one, and we approach it
with a deep feeling of responsibility.
: Counsel for plaintiff says that the or
dinance is unreasonable, and the
charge was necessary to correct a
great and growing evil. What this
evil is the record does not disclose.
Il is not alleged that any great trust
or combine is being formed in inn
pounded mules, and it is not shown
that any trust at all exists as to mules
running loose.
The attorney for the city has fur
lnished us with a printed brief, which
we have read with much interest and
profit, and have filed away for future
reference. In it a case is cited from
North Carolina, where the supreme
court of that state held that three
days advertisement of an impounded
hog was sufficient. Shaw VS.. Kenne-
dy, 4 n. c. SCI; Helen VS.. Noe, % n.
c. 1873. Also a case from Missouri,
holding that three days advertise
ment of impounded cattle was sufi-
cient. White VS.. Haworth, 81 No.,
App. 439.
! Under a former ordinance of the
CITY of Knoxville, it was held that five
days notice by posters at the court
house door was sufficient Mayor etc,
VS.. King. : Lea, 444. In the case of
Moore VS.. state, IL Lea, So, it was
held that an ordinance of the taxing
district of Memphis. providing that
limpounded stock might be sold on
four days advertisement. was valid.
Now. if it would take four days to af-
feet the city of Memphis with notice,
il is said it would not require less
time TO reach the public in Knoxville.
The argument of the city attorney
seems to be that, if hog may be sold
in three days, a mule must be sold IN
two DAYS, since he is much more Of a
nuisance, and much more dangerous
to keep. and the city ought not to be
Expected to remain forever on guard.
Now. we do not desire to say any
thing disrespectful of or derogatory
TO the mule. He has no posterity 10
protect and keep alive his memory.
The ordinance applies to all animals,