Ryan v Bright [1939] HCA 15

Ryan v Bright [1939] HCA 15

The poundkeeper, under the Pounds Act 1928 (Vict.), is bound to detain impounded cattle and is entitled to recapture cattle who have escaped the pound peaceably and on fresh pursuit. This recapture does not interfere with the owner’s possession as the owner retains possession both at common law and under statute, but is temporarily deprived of custody. Therefore, the recapture performed in this case was lawful, no trespass or conversion occurred, and the owner's action fails.

Parties
Appellant: James Alphonsus Ryan; Respondent: William Bright; Respondent: President, Councillors and Ratepayers of the Shire of Woorayl
Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal From the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Victoria
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Distress Damage Feasant, Impounding of Cattle, Powers and Duties of Poundkeepers, Recapture of Escaped Animals, Statutory Duties Under Pounds Act 1928 (vict.)

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 34 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Alphonsus Ryan

Appellant

William Bright

Respondent

President, Councillors and Ratepayers of the Shire of Woorayl

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal From the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Victoria

  1. 1 Whether a poundkeeper under the Pounds Act 1928 (Vict.) has a right to recapture cattle that have escaped from the pound on fresh pursuit without committing trespass or conversion against the owner.
  2. 2 Whether fresh pursuit is necessary for the lawful recapture by a poundkeeper.
  3. 3 Whether the establishment and operation of the pound and appointment of the poundkeeper were valid.

Ratio Decidendi

The poundkeeper, under the Pounds Act 1928 (Vict.), is bound to detain impounded cattle and is entitled to recapture cattle who have escaped the pound peaceably and on fresh pursuit. This recapture does not interfere with the owner’s possession as the owner retains possession both at common law and under statute, but is temporarily deprived of custody. Therefore, the recapture performed in this case was lawful, no trespass or conversion occurred, and the owner's action fails.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.