Bruce v. White

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Bruce v. White

70 Mass. 345

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedOctober 15, 1855

StatusPublished

This text of 70 Mass. 345 (Bruce v. White) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bruce v. White, 70 Mass. 345 (Mass. 1855).

Pincite

Opinion

Shaw, C. J.

The instructions in the present case were correct. The provision of law, authorizing a field driver to take up cattle going at large, and not under the care of a keeper, (Rev. Sts. c. 19, § 22,) has two objects in view—to secure all persons against direct injury, either to their persons or property; and also to enable owners to regain possession of their stray beasts. The taking them and placing in pound, as a public place of security, where the owner can recover them, simply on payment of the necessary expenses, is a course well adapted to accomplish both these desirable objects. When, therefore, cattle are thus in fact at large, and not at the time actually under the efficient care of a keeper, whether through the fault or misfortune of the owner, it is the right and duty of the field driver to take them up and place then, in a public pound, which the town is bound to provide and maintain.

Whether, in a particular case, cattle are in fact going at large in a highway or town way, and whether they are or are not under the care of a keeper, are questions of fact to be determined by a jury, under proper directions. The court are of opinion that these questions were so left, and that proper directions were given in the present case. The fact that a third person found them at large, and took charge of them to prevent their entering any enclosure or doing other mischief, and drove them along the highway until he found a field driver, and then gave him notice of the fact, and relinquished the charge of them to him, did not, in our opinion, make such third person a keeper within the meaning of the statute, nor take the case out of its ope-r .tian, nor [348]*348defeat the right and duty of the field driver to take and -impound them; and the court was right in so directing the jury.

Upon the other ground, we think the directions were right, and that the defendant is entitled to judgment on the verdict.

■ Exceptions overruled,

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Shaw, C. J.

The instructions in the present case were correct. The provision of law, authorizing a field driver to take up cattle going at large, and not under the care of a keeper, (Rev. Sts. c. 19, § 22,) has two objects in view—to secure all persons against direct injury, either to their persons or property; and also to enable owners to regain possession of their stray beasts. The taking them and placing in pound, as a public place of security, where the owner can recover them, simply on payment of the necessary expenses, is a course well adapted to accomplish both these desirable objects. When, therefore, cattle are thus in fact at large, and not at the time actually under the efficient care of a keeper, whether through the fault or misfortune of the owner, it is the right and duty of the field driver to take them up and place then, in a public pound, which the town is bound to provide and maintain.

Whether, in a particular case, cattle are in fact going at large in a highway or town way, and whether they are or are not under the care of a keeper, are questions of fact to be determined by a jury, under proper directions. The court are of opinion that these questions were so left, and that proper directions were given in the present case. The fact that a third person found them at large, and took charge of them to prevent their entering any enclosure or doing other mischief, and drove them along the highway until he found a field driver, and then gave him notice of the fact, and relinquished the charge of them to him, did not, in our opinion, make such third person a keeper within the meaning of the statute, nor take the case out of its ope-r .tian, nor [348]*348defeat the right and duty of the field driver to take and -impound them; and the court was right in so directing the jury.

Upon the other ground, we think the directions were right, and that the defendant is entitled to judgment on the verdict.

■ Exceptions overruled,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 Mass. 345, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bruce-v-white-mass-1855.