190 THEFT AND REMOVAL OF ANIMALS. 



their keep while they were in his possession, as they were his 

 property until on the conviction the title revested in the orig- 

 inal owner.^** 



Where, under an order of attachment, cattle were taken 

 and removed from their accustomed range and placed in a 

 herder's charge on a new range where there was little and 

 poor grass and water, and, owing to the removal and inferior 

 care, they failed to make the customary growth in weight, it 

 was held that though they did not lose in weight, the failure 

 to make the ordinary increase therein was a gain prevented, 

 for which the owner was entitled to be compensated, if the 

 attachment was wrongfully obtained. The court said: "Of 

 course, absolute certainty is not attainable, as in casting up 

 the figures of an account ; but nevertheless there are certain 

 laws of feeding and growth well understood among cattle- 

 men and whose results work out with sufficient certainty for 

 business calculations and judicial investigations. The raising 

 of cattle for market has been an extensive and ofttimes profit- 

 able business in this State, and it would be strange if one 

 could wrongfully take from the owner a herd of cattle, remove 

 them to a poorer range, feed them on inferior food and so 

 treat them that during the growing season they do not grow 

 at all, and then at its end return them, saying, as did the un- 

 faithful servant in the parable who returned the single talent 

 without increase, 'Lo ! there hast thou that is thine,' and still 

 be under no liability to respond in damages to such owner. 

 We do not think the law so deficient. It seems clear that 

 the owner is damaged, that the damages may be determined 

 to a reasonable certainty, and that the wrongdoer is bound 

 to make good the damages." '*" 



The efifect of driving away and close herding cattle during 

 the calving season may be testified to by an expert, and evi- 

 dence is admissible as to the increase that year as compared 



"• Walker v. Matthews, 8 Q. B. D. 109. 

 '°° Hoge V. Norton, 22 Kan. 374. 



