332 BOARD OF AGRICULTURE. 



Bubjcot should lead to something::; i)ractical in regard to one point. 

 It appears from the statements that have been made by Mr. 

 Lebroke and !Mr. Robinson, that ivhen a stray horse goes into an 

 enclosure, the individual, instead of finding- that ho has a liorse 

 upon his hands, is quite likely to find that he has an elephant. Is 

 not some legislation needed to remedy this diflioultj' ? 



Mr. Ledkokk. The answer that the Legislature would make 

 would be "we have already pointed out, very particularly, the 

 duties that you shall perform." Then you reply, "the people of 

 •our town do not furnish a pound." Then the Legislature would 

 reply, "you ought to get the town indicted, and have a pound 

 made, and see that a pound-keeper is duly chosen." That is the 

 diOiculty. 1 think there ought to be some difl'erent legislation. 

 1 think the whole impounding system ought to be swept away, 

 and something or other (if anything of that kind is to be had) sub- 

 stituted in its place. It is a very difficult proceeding, but it is 

 like all <\r/)rt;7c proceedings, in rem, \\hich are always difficult. 



Mr. Lrc.\s. Suppose a drove of cattle come along, and you 

 have no fence, but still there are the usual number of men to drive 

 those cattle, and some of t'.iem get into your corn ? 



;Mr. Lebrokk. They arc liable for the damages, every time. The 

 drivers, at their peril, should keep them olV your premises. 



Mr. SwETT. Suppose A and B own adjacent farms, and there is 

 a line fence to be built. A wishes the fence to be built, and goes 

 on in a lawful way and gets a division of the fence, and builds his 

 part, and B does not. As I understand it, A is authorized to go 

 on and build li's part of the fence. lie builds it; and when he 

 attempts to get his pay he finds that B's farm is mortgaged for all 

 it is worth, and there is no chance for him to get a cent for build- 

 ing B's part of the fence. The question which I wish to ask is. 

 Can A get pay for building that fence from the man wiio holds the 

 mortgage nn this property ? 



Mr. Lebkokk. I do not know that that matter has ever bciMi 

 litigated to a decision ; but in one case that comes to my mind, 

 where 1 was called on for instructions, I counselled the party to 

 make the request both of the mortgagor and mortgagee. But 

 when I came to bring my action I sluuild not want to say, at this 

 moment, where 1 should land. I think the mortgagor in posses- 

 sion is the owner, as against all the world, except the mortgagee. 

 But in a case of clear insolvency 1 am very sure that I should 

 serve a notice upon both parties. 1 am not clear that the mort- 



