318 impounding; injuries on highways, etc. 



pound-keeper, such request will not protect him and he is 

 guilty of trespass. The keeper who has removed the animals 

 "has put an end to the effect of the act of impounding and 

 has become the keeper of an animal belonging to another, 

 with no right in reference thereto other than to deliver it upon 

 demand to the owner." ^^ So, where a distrainor takes an 

 animal out of the pound for the purpose of using it unlaw- 

 fully, the owner may take it out of his possession without 

 rendering himself liable for either rescue or pound-breach.^^ 



There is no relation of debtor and creditor created by law 

 between the impounder and the pound-keeper in relation to 

 the expense of keeping and feeding, and, in the absence of 

 an express contract that the impounder will pay expenses, 

 the pound-keeper has no remedy against him therefor. If 

 the animals were impounded contrary to law, so that the im- 

 pounder is a trespasser, this will not enable the pound-keeper 

 to recover of the impounder such expense in an action upon a 

 book-account.'^ 



Where the fence of the pound is sufficient, the fact that a 

 horse kills himself by rushing or kicking against it or by try- 

 ing to clear it does not make the municipal corporation 

 liable." And in replevin brought against the field-driver, the 

 owner cannot show that the cattle were not suitably provided 

 for or were ill-treated in the pound.^^ A private individual 

 impounding a beast in the town pound is not liable for an in- 

 jury which it receives from cattle confined in the same 

 pound.^^ 



Taking away and setting at liberty, even without violence 

 or threats, is a rescue of a distrained or impounded animal. S' 



" Collins V. Fox, 48 Conn. 490. "= Smith v. Wright, 6 H. & N 821 

 =' Williams I'.Willard, 23 Vt. 369. " Greencastle v. Martin, 74 Ind 449 

 "' Pickard v. Howe, 12 Mete. (Mass.) ig8. 

 '° Brightman v. Grinnell, 9 Pick. (Mass.) 14. 

 " Hamlin v. Mack, 33 Mich. 103. 



That this at least is essential to the offense of pound-breach, see State 

 v. Young, 18 N. H. 543. 



