28G DT^^TRATXTNG IMPLEMENTS OF HUSBANDRY. 



naiunv, thougli deer may which are put np to fat ( DaviH y. Powell). 

 Wearing apparel, if in actual use, cannot be distrained, nor whatever 

 else is in actual use at the time ; and goods sent to any place by way 

 of trade, but not to remain there permanently, are within the exception. 

 A /id so a horse wJien lie goes to he shoed, or faJces corn to market, is 

 exempt, as well as when a person is actually riding it. Slteej) and leasts 

 of plough are privileged by 51 Hen. III. 6*/. 4, while there is another suffi- 

 cient distress, unless they are found damage feasant. But an action is not 

 maintainable for distraining beasts of the plough when there is no 

 other sufficient subject of distress on the premises beside growing crops 

 (Piggott V. Birtles) ; for the landlord has a right to resort to the subjects 

 of distress which can be made immediatelg available ; and beasts of the 

 plough are distrainable for arrears of poor-rate (Rutchins v. Chamhers) 

 when there were other things that might have been distrained, and 

 exceeding the value of the demand. An implement of trade is only 

 privileged if it be in use, and if there be no other distress on the 

 premises (Fen ton v. Logan). Here the threshing machine had been let 

 to hire by the plaintiff to the tenant, on whom the defendant in replevin 

 had distrained. The work for which it was let had been completed on 

 the Saturday, and the distress was made on the next Monday, when 

 there was- no other distress on the premises. Gorton v. Falhier was 

 decisive against the plaintiflF. And see Lord Lyndlmrst C. B.'s judgment 

 in Wood V. Clarke. 



An action of trespass will lie for distraining tools or implements of 

 trade and industrg (here a spade and dung forlc), though not in actual 

 use, if there he other sufficient distress on the premises at the time (Nargatt 

 V. Nias), Lord Camphell C.J. thus remarked on Piggolt v. Birtles, 

 Yolland v. Price, Hutchins v. Chamhers, Dawson v, Alford, and Fitz- 

 herbert's Katura Brevium, 90, which were cited in support of the rule : 

 " On examining the cases cited in the argument, we do not find any 

 which decides that trespass is not maintainable. The precedent cited 

 from Fitzherbert, is classed under the head " Writ of Trespass" ; and 

 in Corayn's Digest, " Trespass, &c.," it is laid down that trespass will 

 lie for an unlawful distress of goods, and the same precedent, as in 

 Fitzherbert, is there referred to in support of that position. 



Piggott V. Birtles was an action on the case, in which the plaintiff, 

 by one of the counts in the declaration, complained of the distraining 

 his beasts of the plough, there being other chattels on the premises ; 

 and the only matter decided in that case was respecting the distress of 

 beasts of the plough, that they were distraina])le when there was no 

 other sufficient distress on the premises besides growing crops. In 

 Uuicluhs V. Chamhers, there were two distresses under the same war- 



