Oldalképek
PDF
ePub
[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small]

Making in the whole, if Rabbits may be so called, 312 Head of Game, with which he daily retired from the Field, unattended, and loaded like a Porter!

A Gentleman, within a short distance of WORCESTER, killed a Hare and a brace of Partridges, at one shot! The Hare was his Object, and the Birds happening to be at a short distance on the Ground, in a strait Direction, will account for the Occurrence; but this was nothing, to the Performance of Mr. LEVI LARKHAM, who holds the Deputation of Radipole Farm, under J. H. BROWNE, Esq. who killed a Hare running, and a brace of Partridges flying, at one Shot!

In October, 1811, as Mr. W. a Gentleman in the Neighbourhood of Lewes, SusSEX, was shooting Partridges with a double-barrelled Gun, and attended by a brace of excellent Pointers, his Dogs stood, the Covey rose, and he discharged both barrels, bringing down his Bird to the right and left; finding his Dogs still stationary in the high stuff, from which the Birds had risen, he re-loaded, but found, that by his first Fire, he had not only shot the Partridges quite dead, but his two Pointers also! This sporting Casualty, was occasioned by the Dogs standing on a small Eminence, and the Birds going off nearly close to the lower Ground, immediately in a Line with them.

Some Years since, three Gentlemen, from Whitehaven, shot nearly Sixty brace of Grouse in One Week, upon Stanmore, all of which, except six or seven, were old Birds. A certain Mode of providing for future Amusement.

In August, 1808, William Jamieson, in Craghead, of Auchinleck, in his Eighty-sixth Year, went to the head of Aird's Moss, SCOTLAND, to take a Day's sport at the Pouting; and, although the Day was unfavourable, and the Game shy, he returned, in high Spirits, with two brace and half of Birds. The same Man, in 1812, when Ninety Years old, set out to hunt wild Ducks, and was lucky enough to hit five Shots running, and to kill three brace of full-grown Ducks, with which the cheerful old Man came home in Triumph. He was married about seven Years ago, to his fourth Wife, and has upwards of One hundred Children, and Grand-children.

In October, 1812, James Westwick, the Keeper of Sir HENRY VANE TEMPEST, Bart. being in the Gun-room, at Vynyard, DURHAM, a Hare was observed from the Window, at a considerable Distance, which, by the particular Desire of Sir HENRY, the Keeper shot at, and killed with a Ball, One hundred and fifty-five Yards, from the House.

Red Grous.

In 1809, Mr. WM. ROUTLEDGE, of Oakshaw, in Bewcastle, Cumberland, had in his Possession a brace of Moor-game, completely domesticated; and which have so far forgotten their natural Food, as to prefer Corn, Crumbs of Bread, &c. to the tops and seeds of Heath. The Hen laid lately twelve Eggs, but from some Accident, was not suffered to hatch them; or, in all Probability, the young Brood, would have been equally as tame, as their Parents.

Game Laws.

We shall here mention some late Decisions upon, or arising out of Questions connected with, these Statutes.

PARRY, qui tam, v. PERCH.

The Action was brought, to recover three Penalties from the Defendant, who keeps a Tavern in Fetter-lane, for selling Game. In the Affidavit of the Defendant, it was positively stated, that he never received a notice of the Declaration, and, on that account, did not make Defence.

Upon the Behalf of the Plaintiff, an Affidavit was read, which as positively stated the Service. To this Affidavit some objections were made by Serjeant BEST, on account of Interlineations, but the Court over-ruled them. The Learned Serjeant then urged, that, on payment of Costs, the Defendant should be allowed to go to Trial, on the Merits of the Case, as this was an Action on a penal Statute.

Sir JAMES MANSFIELD delivered his Opinion, rather in Favour of the Plaintiff; and it was at length agreed, that the Defendant should pay one Penalty, and all the Costs incurred.

LENTON V. PHIPPS.

In April, 1807, Mr. GARROW applied for a Rule to shew Cause, why an Attorney of the Name of Rushforth, should not pay the Defendant his Costs in this Case, and why he should not answer the Matters, contained in the Affidavits.-This person, by means of

a Servant of his, had commenced a qui tam Action against the Defendant, upon the Game Laws, and upon the Trial, Mr. PHIPPS was at the Expence of upwards of 907. to prove his Qualification. The Verdict was in favour of the Defen lant; and when application was made to LENTON for the Payment of the Costs, as the ostensible Party suing, he said that he had nothing to do with it, further than as Mr. Rushforth had requested Permission to make use of his Name, which he professed himself ready to confirm by Affidavit. When, however, that Instrument was presented to him for his Signature, he refused, being then under the Influence of Rushforth. The Counsel produced an Affidavit from one Snart, who deposed, that he was under the same Circumstances as LENTON, having permitted Mr. Rushforth to employ his Name, in a qui tam Action, against another Gentleman upon the Game Laws, the latter promising to indemnify him. Mr. GARROW Concluded, by adverting to a similar Proceeding against an Attorney, named Browne, who, he said, had employed himself in picking up Paupers, to commence qui tam Suits, against respectable Country Gentlemen.-Rule granted *.

At the SOMERSETSHIRE Assizes, 1807, CHAMPNEYS, Esq. brought his Action against the Rev. Mr. RICHARDS, Rector of Farleigh, for Non-Residence. The Counsel for the Defendant observed, that this Action was not to be attributed to the Cause, or for the Good, of RELIGION, but that it originated, in a Dispute on the Subject of Partridgeshooting. The Non-Residence being proved, the Plaintiff obtained, of Course, a Verdict for one-third of a Year's Value of the Living, and Costs.

In 1808, a Writ of Enquiry of Damages was executed, at HEREFORD, between J. D. COTT, Esq. Plaintiff, and William Davies and Thomas Fenner, Defendants, the former being Game-keeper, and the latter Coachman, to S. PEPLOE, Esq. of Grhystone, for assaulting the Plaintiff in November last, in the Manor of Weebley, and forcibly taking his Gun from him.-The Jury, after hearing the Evidence on the part of the Plaintiff, assessed the Damages at, Sixty Pounds.

• More immediately to the deserved future Destiny, of the above Class of ATTORNEYS, this Anecdote of the English ARISTOPHANES, may apply. A Gentleman in the Country, who had just buried a rich Relation, an ATTORNEY, complained to FOOTE, who happened to be on a Visit with him, of the very great Expences of a Country Funeral, in respect to Carriages, Hat-bands, Scarves, &c. "Why, do you bury your ATTORNEYS here?" asked FOOTE, gravely. "Yes, to be sure we do: how else?"—" Oh! we never do that in LONDON." "No!" said the Other, much surprised; “how do you manage?"—" Why, when the Patient dies, we lay him out in a Room, lock the Door, throw open the Sash, and in the Course of the Night, he is entirely "Indeed!" said the Other in Amazement; "what becomes of him?" off."—" Why, that we cannot exactly tell, not being acquainted with supernatural Causes. All that we know of the Matter, is, that there's a strong Smell of BRIMSTONE in the ROOM, the NEXT MORNING."

66

New Game Act.

By ACT 1808. The Duties on Game Certificates, are taken from the STAMP-Office, and are in future to be collected, by the TAX-Office.-The Money, viz. 31. 3s. is to be paid by every Gentleman, using any Dog, Gun, Net, or other Engine, for the purpose of taking or killing any Game whatsoever, or any Woodcock, Snipe, Quail, or Land-Rail, or any Conies, in any part of Great Britain, to the Collector of the Assessed Taxes, for the Parish or Place, in which he shall reside; such Collector, on receiving the said Duty, and one Shilling for his Trouble, shall make out a Receipt, which the Gentleman applying is to take to the Commissioner's Clerk, who must give him in Exchange, without Fee or Reward, a Certificate, which Certificate, is to be produced when demanded, as heretofore.— Game-keepers, for whom the Servant's duty is paid, 17. 1s. each; but Persons shooting under Deputations, not Servants, to pay 31. 3s.-The taking Woodcocks, or Snipes, with Nets or Springs, or Conies in Warrens, or by Proprietors in any inclosed Lands, to be excepted from the said Duties.-The above Act declares, that neither the foregoing Assessments, nor the Payment thereof, nor the Certificate, nor any thing in this Act contained, shall authorise any Person to use any Dog, Gun, &c. unless such Person shall be, by previous Laws, qualified so to do.-Nor shall any Person shooting under a Deputation or Deputations, be hereby authorised, to use any Dog or Gun off the Manor, &c. for which he shall be deputed *.

Sussex Assizes, 1808.-HEBBEN v. LUFF.

This was an Action to recover a Penalty, for a Breach of the Game Laws, on the Statute of the 9th of ANNE, Cap. 25, Sect. 2, which gives a Penalty against any unqualified Person, having Game in his Possession, and makes the mere having of it, Evidence of an Exposure to Sale. Mr. COURTHORPE having stated the Law, next produced Evidence of the Fact, which was proved by two Gamekeepers, who being on the watch early in the Morning, heard the Screams of a Hare, upon which they looked about, and discovered a Hare in a Trap, not far from the Cottage of the Defendant; they lay in wait, expecting that the person who set the Trap, would come to see what it produced: they saw the Defendant come to the Trap, and take the Hare out: upon this they came

* By a late ACT, the Certificates for killing Game, will be liable to additional Duties; all of One Guinea, are increased to Twenty-five Shillings, and those of three Guineas, to three Guineas and a half.

out of their Concealment, but the Defendant seeing them, threw the Hare away, and denied that he had had it; they, however, found the Hare, at a little distance from him.

Mr. Serjeant BEST submitted to the Court, that this was not such a Possession, as the ACT meant, when it made Possession, an Exposure to Sale.

The JUDGE, on referring to the ACT, declared he did not wish to extend the Game Laws, but the Words were so very positive, that he did not know how to get over them, it in Express Terms made all Possession of Game, by an unqualified Person, an Exposure to Sale. The Jury found the Defendant, Guilty.

At LEICESTER Assizes, an Action of Trespass, commenced by Earl FERRERS against Mr. Randall Lovell, for shooting in his Lordship's Preserves, at Thrussington, was tried at Nisi Prius; the Plaintiff obtained a Verdict; and the Judge (Mr. Baron GRAHAM) gave a Certificate, under the 8 and 9 W. 3. c. 11, for Costs, declaring, that the Species of Trespass for which the Action was brought, (notwithstanding the Defendant had not been previously warned to keep off the Plaintiff's Lands,) was wilful and malicious, and the Plaintiff in Consequence entitled to Costs, although the Damages were under Forty Shillings.

In the Case of WARNEFORD V. KENDALL, the POSSESSION of Game by a Servant, employed to detect Poachers, who took it up, after it had been killed by Strangers, on the Manor, in order to carry it to the Lord, is not a POSSESSION, within the Penalty of the Game Laws. Lord ELLEN BOROUGH, C. J., the Question is, Whether the PosSESSION of the Defendant, were such as to constitute an Offence? He did not claim the Hare as his Property, nor acquire the Possession of it for himself, but for his Master, on whose Manor it was taken; and if this be an Offence, no Case can be stated, in which an unqualified Person, can innocently come in Contact with Game. It may as well be said, that if a qualified Man returning Home with a Bag of Game, was to fall from his Horse, another could not lawfully take up the Bag, in order to assist the Owner. The Case of MOLTON V. CHEESELEY (the Fact then proved, was, that a Pheasant had by Accident, been killed by the Defendant's Dog, and the Defendant, had carried it away, and two Penalties were sought to be recovered, One, for having the Pheasant in his POSSESSION, not being qualified; the Other, for keeping a Dog to kill Game. Mr. Justice Buller is said to have ruled, that the Plaintiff could go for one Penalty only, and that two Penalties, could not be recovered under this Statute, for the same Act done by the Defendant,) must have been imperfectly stated.-GROSE, LE BLANC, and BAYLEY, Justices, assented, and the former observed, that the POSSESSION of the Game by the Defendant, was rather for the Purpose of protecting the Game, than in Breach of the Laws, for preserving it.—Rule absolute. EAST's Rep. p. 19.

« ElőzőTovább »