« ПредишнаНапред »
ing to the babits or taste of the last. The defendant made out a seainen, was termed necessity. warrant for seizing the plaintiff's
There was an old sea term in use gun, wbich warrant was on that in the early and mid:lle part of the day executed by a constable namer! last century, for the signification Robert Osborne, and the gun acof whicb I have sought in vain, in corrlingly seized and delivered to hooks of voyages, and as vainly the defendant. The question was, enquired among old seamen. It whether the defendant was lawa is--". A ship lying to, with her fully authorized to adopt this proyards a portland." Many `sea- ceeding under the statute 5 Ann, faring persons, retired from the c. 14. s. 4. which gives a power to fatigues and perils of that bois. the Justices to issue their warrant t'erous life, must be readers of your for seizing to their own use, any entertaining Miscellany, the best net, spring, &c. or other engine, adapted of all others to chear the used by unqualified persons for takheavy hours of such persons; some ing or killing game. such, perhaps, may be able to ex Mr. Serjeant Best, on the part plain the meaning of the above of the defendant, submitted that technical plirase.
the warrant issued by his client was I remain, Sir, one of those who lawful under the statute, and conreceive my monthly amusement, sequently this action was not mainand vot seldom instruction, from tainable. He contended that a gun your bands, and your well wisher came within the general words of and bumble servant,
the statute, as an engine used for AN ELDER. the purpose of killing game, and
the gun in question having been
unlawfally used by the plaintiff, INTERESTING DECISIONS UN- who was a person not qualified to DER THE GAME LAWS, HORSE kill game, it might be seized under CAUSES, &c.
warrant of the defendant. Trice at the late Summer Assizes. Mr. Marryatt and Mr. Gurney
on the other side contended, that Essex, before Mr. Justice Le by the stat. of 22d and 23d of Blunc.
Charles II. a distinction was taken
between a gun and nets, and other Ley v. Torin, Esq.
devices used for the purposes of was an action of trespass killing game.
They cited 2d against the defendant, one of Strange's Reports, Burn's Justice, the Magistrates of the county, re- 463, Session's Cases, in support of siding at Kelvedon, for unlawfully their argument. seizing a gon, the property of the Mr. Justice Le Blanc thought plaintiff, and converting it to his the case so doubtful, that he re
commended it should be mentioned The facts of the case were short to the Court of King's Bench in ly these: the plaintiff, Charles Ley, term, and that in the mean time being an- unqualified person, and the plaintiff should be suffered to having 'no licence to kill game, take a verdict with nominal dabad been convicted by the defend mages, subject to a motion to enter ant in the penalty of 51. under the a nonsuit, if the Court should tbink game laws, on the 25th of October the action not maintainable. А
verdict was accordingly taken for plainly that they must not attempt the plaintiff-damages 1s.
to do any such thing. They then
pretended that they were going six Piggott v. Pidgeon.
miles farther on, to the grounds of This was an action against the a frienil. About an hour before defeudant, to recover three penal- day-light they left Torrington's ties under the game laws, for kille premises, but suspecting that their ing game without a license, for intentions were improper, lie went using dogs for the purpose of kill. out after he had bad his breakfast, ing game, and for unlawfully using to look after them; and accordinga gún for the like purpose. To ly be found them in the act of this action, the defendant pleaded sporting on his master's grounds. that, at the time the said action He immediately demanded their was commenced, there was another certificate, but finding them ataction for the 'self-same offences tempting to shuffle, he insisted depending against bim at the suit upon having tlieir names and adof anotber plaintiff named Garth. dresses, which they immediately Upon this plea, issue was taken; gave bim, but it turned out that the plaintiff, in his replication, the names and addresses they bad alleging, that the said action, al- given were utterly false. Soon af. luded to in the defendant's plea, terwards Mr. Button, who had been was brought for the purpose of informed that strangers were seen covin and collusion, to prevent the in his preserves, came to demand plaintiff maintaining his said action an explanation of who they were, against him.
and whether they were qualified. The circumstances of this curi. To biin tbey shuffled in the same
as follow :-The manner, and gave him the like false plaintiff is tenant of Button, description of themselves which Esq. the Lord of the Manor of they had given the gamekeeper. Muckingford. On the 13th of They were, however, warned off the November last, at twelve o'clock premises, and Mr. Button watched at night, the defendant and two them till they had quitted his other persons, named Garth and manor. Upon inquiry afterwards, Powell, accompanied by three through the medium of the police sporting dogs, and armed with department in London, it was disa fowling-pieces, came to the George covered that the defendant had public-house, kept by Torrington, formerly been a waiter at Peele's Mr. Button's gamekeeper, to seek Coffee-house, in Fleet-street, and a lodging for the night. After then the keeper of the Royal Exsome difficulty, Torrington ad- change Coffee-house; that Garth, mitted them into his house, but the person alluded to in the de. Waving yo beds for them, they were fendant's plea, was a mathematic permitted to take up their lodging cal instrument maker, residing at in the tap-room. The publican, Rotherhitbe, and that Powell was seeing theni armed cap-a-pee with an humble tradesman in some oball the paraphernalia of sporting, scure part of the town. taxed them with an intention of It appeared in evidence with re. coming to tbat part of the country spect to the defendant's plea, tbat for the purpose of shooting, which the action alleged to bave been they not denying, be told them commenced against bim by Garth,
ous case were
was not thought of until some his shoulder, and be immediately time after the present action was determined to repudiate the har. brought by Mr. Button's tenant. gain. Accordingly be returned
Mr. Taddy, on the part of the the horse to the defendant, dedefendant, alleged, tbat the action manding his money back, and the brought by Garth against the le mare which he had given in exfendaut was a bona fide proceeding, change. By this time the defendin consequence of bis having taken ant had sold the plaintiff's mare to offence at Pidgeon's giving up his some other person for twelve guireal name to Mr. Button ; and neas, but expressed his readiness to from the tenor of his instructions take his own borse back again, be was led confidently to believe the unsoundoess of which be utterthat Garth, when examined as a ly denied, and restore the money witness, would prove most distinct which had been paid for bim, and ly, tbat bis action was brought also endeavour to get the plaintiff's prior to the present one on the part mare back again hy re-purchase. of the plaintiff. He was accord. These terms the plaintiff refused to ingly proceeding to call Mr. Garth, accept, unless he was paid for the when
keep of the defendant's borse durThe Learned Judge suggested ing the time he remained in his the propriety of abstaining to call possession. The present action, so interested a witness who, if put therefore, was virtually hrought for into the box, might expose himself the expence incurred by the plainto future consequences, perhaps of tiff in the keep of the defendant's an unpleasant description.
horse, from the time of the sale Mr. Taddy adopted bis Lorde until it was returned. Evidence, ship's suggestion, and declined call. bowerer, was gone into upon the ing Mr. Garth.
question of the warranty, which The Jury, under the direction appeared to be clearly established, of his Lordship, then returned a and the learned Judge left it to the serdict for the plaintiff, upon the Jury to say, under all the circumissue in question.-Damages 1s.- stances of the case, wbat damages Costs, 40s.
the plaintiff ought to receive against
the defendant, who had paid into Clark v. Parris.
court, under a plea of tender, the This was an action upon the 211. which he had received of the warranty of a horse. The parties plaintiff, and had expressed his reside in the neighbourhood of willingness to pay what should Bishop Stortford, and in the month appear to be the value of the plainof April last, the plaintiff made a tiff's mare. bargain with the defendant, hy The Jury, after some cousultawhich the former was to give a tion, brought in a special verdict, mare of bis own, worth 101. 10. tbat each party should give up bis and the sum of 211. in money, to respective borse to the other; but the defendant, in lieu of the horse Mr. Justice Le Blanc told tbem in question, which was warranted that that was not the question they to be perfectly sound. In a very were called upon to try. Tbe simshort time after the horse was de- ple question was, whether the delivered, the plaintiff discovered that fendant had warranted the borse he had an incurable lameness in to be sound which he had sold to
the plaintiff. If the unsoundness is the 42d of the King, c. 107, and and the warranty were made out in the 1st sect. it euacts “ tbat it to their satisfaction, the plaintiff any person shall bunt, course, was entitled to their verdict for the shoot, wound, steal, or destroy, or value of the mare which he had attempt so to do, any red or talgiven in exchange, over and above low deer, in any inclosed the 21l. paid into court by the den any forest, chase, purles, or an. fendant in respect of his ansound cient walk, or any inclosed park, borse returned to him hy the plain- paddock, or other inclosed ground
where deer are usually kept, witliThe Jury then wished to give out being duly authorised so to do, the plaintiff 121. 125. the sum for shall be guilty of a felony, and which, it appeared, the defendant subject to transportation for seven had sold the plaintiff's mare; hut years.”—The 2d section recites the the learned Judge told them that above crime, but says, if it is in any the plaintiff was not entitled to the open forest, or uninclosed place, the profit wbich the defendant bad person so offending shall be liable made upon the sale of the mare, to a penalty of 501.--And the 1th wvbich he bad received in exchange, section states,
" that if but bad only a right to recover the person, after having been duly consim at which the mare was valued victed of the offence mentioned at between the parties originally. in the 2il section, shall be found
The Jury, accordingly, founal a guilty of the sanie offence a second Ferdict for the plaintif.-Damages time, be shall be guilty of a felony, 101. 10s.
and liable to seven years transpor
tation.". In tbe above case, where James Fordham was indicted at the prisoner so narrowly escaped, these Assizes, for baving felonious. it was proved that he was conly stolen, on the 10th of April, victed on the first offence, and the from Hainault Forest, a fallow certificate of his conviction in acdeer, the property of Pole Tilney cordance with the act, said he had Long Wellesley, Esq. having been been duly convicted; but the infined 501, for a similar vitence on a dictment stated that he had been former occasion.
lawfully convicted, and upon this The act states, that “ if a per- be escaped. son he duly convicted of any offence for which a pecuniary penalty or forfeiture is imposed, &c." But the indictment stated that
Woodbridge v. Harper. " the prisoner had been lawfully Tuis was an action of trespass convicted, &c.”? which flaw Lord brought by Lord Viscount GrinsEllenborough held to be sufficient ston, in the name of his tenant, to acquit the prisoner. The Jury Mr. Woodbridge, against the deaccordingly found bim not guilty. fendant, for breaking and entering
Perhaps as this subject comes bis Lordship's preserves, near St. under our notice in this place, a Alban's, and destroying the game. little explanation relative to the ļt appeared in evidence, that the law upon the above-named offence, defendant, who keeps the Three may not be amiss.—The act, under Tons public-house, in Beltonwhich the prisoner was indicted, street, Hanover-street, Long Acre,
in company with a person of the admitted by their Counsel, were name of James Tarrant, a dealer unqualified persons, sporting in the in sporting dogs and poultry, at neighbourhood of the defendant, No. 2, Chapel-row, Sloane-street, upon which Mr. Baker issued bis and another person of the name warrant, to apprehend Nicolls and of Thomas Pain, who has notheen a person unknown in bis comfound, on the 29th day of Novem- pany,” for wandering about and ber last, got into bis Lordship's haunting public houses, whereby preserves, and notwithstanding no. they became rogues and vagabonds. tices given to him, both verbally Upon this warrant the constable and in writing, by one of his Lord- apprehended Nicolls and the plainship's gamekeepers (authorised so tif Turney. But in their way to to do), persisted in beating the the house of Mr. Baker, Nicolls preserves, and in destroying the escaped. The constable hearing pheasants and other game. It also that Mr. Baker was from home, came out on the trial, that the de- took Turney to Mr. Godfrey's, but fendant and his companions gave he refused to act upon Mr. Baker's fictitious descriptions of themselves. warrant; but a charge was laid The defendant stated, that be lived before bim against Turney, for in West-square, Lambeth.—Tar- sporting, not being a qualified perrant stated, that he was an up
He admitted be was not quaholsterer in Little Moorgate---and lified, upon which Mr. Godirey Pain, that his name was Rainer, convicted him in a penalty of five and tbat he lived in St. Martin's. pouuds under the statute. Turney lane; all of wbich turned out upon said he had no money with him, enquiry to be false. By dint of but offered to pledge his watch, much perseverance and industry, which was accepted by the in'bowever, the real names of all, and former as security for the fine. the addresses of defendant and Tar- He, however, never came to rerant were traced out, and the pre. deem the watch, but brought the sent action was brought by way of above action for the illegality of the punishnsent for the offence. The warrant. facts being proved, the Jury with His Lordship beld, that with reout hesitation returned a verdict spect to Mr. Baker, the warrant for the plaintiff, finding the de was an illegal one, yet it did not fendant guilty of the trespass; and mention Mr. Turney's name, and the learned Judge immediately cer that the constable took him at his tified, thereby subjecting the de own risque as answering the de. fendant to all tbe costs and ex scription of the
person unpences of the suit.
known," for Mr. Baker never
afterwards saw the constable or Turney v. Godfrey, (Clerk,) and another. the prisoner so as to recognise the
This was an action of assault act of the constable; and with reand false imprisonment against spect to Mr. Godfrey, he bad reMr. Godfrey and Mr. Baker, two fused to act under Mr. Baker's Magistrates of the county, upon warrant, but bad convicted the the following facts:
plaintiff under an information reThe plaintiff, Turney, and a per- gularly laid before bimself.-Plainson of the name of Nicolls, as was tiff nonsuited,