OPEN FIELD SUFFICIENT POUND. 283 



distinguishable because the tenancy did not expire Avith the death 

 {Turner v. Barnes and others). 



An open field is a pound sufficient at Jaw in ichich to distrain cattle 

 laJcen fur rent arrear {CastJenuiin v. Hides) per Coleridge J. AVhere a 

 bailiff went a little into the field in which the cattle wei'e, and touching 

 one of them on the side, said, ^^ I distrain t/iese cat tk for rent; "and 

 then, after taking a list of them, left them undisturbed in the field 

 (although he subsequently returned, and then placed them in the 

 charge of another man), without putting any lock or additional fasten- 

 ing on to the gate, and gave notice of distress to the tenant, informing 

 him that if the rent and costs were not paid he would proceed to sell 

 in five days, and adding that the cattle were impounded on the premises, 

 though he did not say where — it was held by the Court of Common 

 Pleas {Maule J. diss.), principally on the authority of Frith v. Purvis, 

 that under these circumstances the impounding of the cattle was com- 

 plete and perfect from the time of giving the notice to the tenant ; 

 and consequently a tender of the rent and costs of distraining, &c., 

 after such incident was too late (Thomas v. Harris). And jjer Tindal 

 C.J : "According to the best construction which I can put upon 11 

 Geo. II. c. 19, s. 10, the impounding of the cattle was complete before 

 the tender was made. A pound, in its strict legal sense, means an 

 enclosed place, where cattle are kept until rent is paid. The words ' or 

 otherwise secure the distress,' used in the statute give a greater latitude, 

 and do not render it imperative on the party to secure them in such 

 pound. For example, cattle grazing in a field, and goods, chattels, or 

 effects placed in a room or other places fit for their reception, may be 

 said to be impounded." 



And so in Tcnnant v. Field, where a landlord sent a broker to distrain 

 for rent upon the tenant's premises, but he did not lay his hands upon 

 any of the goods, to indicate an impounding, &c., and by the tenant's 

 wife's request nothing was done but an inventory taken and a man left 

 in possession, with a notice that the broker had "distrained" the goods, 

 the Court of Queen's Bench held that this was an impounding under 11 

 Geo. II. c. 19, and that the landlord was not bound afterwards to accept 

 a tender of rent. And per Lord Campbell C.J. : '• The consent of the 

 parties makes this case like a room being the pound, a man being left 

 in possession. This, I think, was equivalent to an actual impounding ; 

 and looking at the cases and authorities, I am consequently of opinion 

 tliat there was an impounding before tender." Frle J. said : "I agree 

 with the rest of the Court, because the tenant's conduct showed that 

 he agreed to the goods being left where they were. The statute shows 

 that there may be an impounding on the pi-emises ; but I certainly 



