§ Winģ-Commander Jamesasked the Secretary of State for War what facilities for redress it is proposed to offer to horse-owners whose valuable horses were taken by his Department, in some cases in their absence, without any notification to them at the time or subsequently, either that the seizure was not compulsory, or that they had any right of appeal against the low price given, and who consequently were unaware of their right of appeal to a county court until the statutory period had elapsed?
§ Mr. Hore-BelishaI am informed that the purchase of horses was maily effected 555W by agreement, and that impressment had to be resorted to in only about 3 per cent. of the total number of cases. Where impressment was used, a notice was served on the owner which clearly informed him of his right of appeal on the question of price.
§ Winģ-Commander Jamesasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that in some cases owners of commandeered horses were instructed, or their servants were instructed in their absence, to have the animals shod, and to provide halters, before delivering them to the military authorities; that no compensation for this cost has been offered, whether the animals were taken or not; and whether he will have his decision upon this point published in the agricultural Press?
§ Mr. Hore-BelishaIf a purchaser gave instructions for a horse to be shod after he had bought it, he should have paid for the cost. He should also have paid for any halters which he took over. I am not aware that any instructions of the kind mentioned were given before animals were taken.