St. Landry clarion. (Opelousas, La.) 1890-1921, 1909-10-23

tSPSS
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
came from originally. He made in
quiriess however, and among other
things went to a telephone station to
inquire Of the pound-keeper if he had
such a mule. It appeared, however,
that Central was busy or gone to
dinner, and Mr.. Bradburn could not
reach the pound-keeper. He there
upon 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. It does not appear
who was at the other end of the
line, so that the truth of this answer
is not verified.
The mule, however, did not return
to Sewer county, but preferred to be
locked up in Knoxville. MI. Bradburn
did not see the advertisement in the
Journal and Tribune. Probably he
did not take that paper, but read the
Sentinel.
Counsel says that the advertisement
was put in al obscure place. Exactly
what he means the court to infer from
that we are unable to see. The court
Fcannot judicialIy know there is any
thing obscure in any Knoxville paper,
unless it be in the reports of Supreme
Court opinions, and these appear to
be obscure only to the lawyers who
lose their cases.
After the sale, and plaintiff found
out where his mule was, he replevied
him. The case was tried before the
court and jury in the court below,
and plaintiff was successful, and de-
PENDANT has appealed; but he has
been paid back the money he paid for
the mule. and the further proceed
ings do not appear to interest him.
The city comes in, however, by
counsel, and complains earnestly of
the charge of the circuit judge. The
learned trial Judge charged that an
ordinance of the city which provided
for a sale of animals impounded after
only two days advertisement was un-
reasonable and invalidr that two days
was not sufficient notice to give, and
q sale under such advertisement would
be void, and confer no title on the
purchaser, and he could communicate
none to a paaty who bought from him,
even without notice.
The learned trial judge also charged
that the proceeding by the municipal
ity to sell impounded stock, being a
summary proceeding, must be strictly
pursued; that the poundmaster should
Immediately, upon im~pounding the
animal, make the advertisement, and
that if the mule was impounded on
the 9Th, and not advertised till the
18th, it was not a compliance with
the ordinance and a sale Hereunder
would be null and void, and commune
cate no title To the purchaser, and he
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 city attorney insists that this
is requiring too great a degree of dill
igence on the part of the poundmas-
ter, and that a reasonable delay will
not vitiate his sale, essecially when
that delay is caused by trying to find
the owner.
The argument is that the word
Immediately" as used in the ordi-
nance, does not mean instantaneous
ly"; that the poundkeeper must have
sufficient time to shut the pound gate,
so as to keep the mule in, before he
starts to the printing Office; that,
after he does start, he may proceed
in a brisk walk, and is not required
to 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.
VIZ 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 the
opinion that, under all the facts of
this case, there was no such unreason-
able delay as would render the sale
void.
Now, if the mule was the party
complaining, the court would feel
disposed to say the delay was too
great, as it does not appear that the
mule had anything to eat during his
stay al the city's guest. But neither
the city nor the owner has any
ground of complaint.
It 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 vas necessary to correct a