THE FARMER'S MAGAZINE. 



485 



has been done ; we are liable ; wc wish you simply to assess 

 the amount to be paid by us in compensation." But in face 

 of the tacts produced, the buying of rabbits, the buying of 

 birds' eggs, &c., they came and disputed the whole matter. 

 The learned judge would instruct the jury that if the defen- 

 dants did turn the rabbits down on the estate, the necessary 

 consequence was that they were breeding and thus over- 

 stocking the estate. Then, there was also the additional 

 fact that whilst there were at Christmas 185!5 so very few 

 rabbits they could not have good sport in shooting them, in 

 the course of a lew months they had become so numerous as 

 to be positively a nuisance. Whence came they all, if thoy 

 had not been turned down ? Even Mr, Dodds himself, who 

 never believed at all in the existence of rabbits, until the 

 damage of the crop of 1859, had become satisfied that the 

 increase of rabbits was so undue that in 18(J0 he gave a 

 written authority to Mr. Rome to destroy them, because 

 they were doing so much mischief. That question as to 

 the increase of rabbits in 1859 was of vital consequence. 

 He (Mr. Pope) thought that he should insult the under- 

 standing of the jurj' were he to address them at length on 

 that point. That part of the case had not been answered, 

 nor had it been attempted to be argued, by his learned 

 friend ; and he (Mr. Pope) therefore claimed damages lor 

 the injury done by what was evidently the turning dowu of 

 rabbits into the plantation, if not the farm itself. That, 

 however, was not the only ground of action. The plaintiff 

 was also entitled to damages for any trespass which might 

 be proved, in setting traps for rats or cats. Tlie defendants 

 had no right to come upon the farm of the plaintiff, accord- 

 ing to the reservation of the lease, for any other purpose 

 thau for the game, aud that was to be taken in the ordinary 

 legitimate way. Blackledge had admitted that cats had 

 been ciught. Some of those cats had been proved to belong 

 to the plaintiff. The keeper had been seen on the farm with 

 traps such as could catch cats. Mr. Mayhew thought that 

 the rata had done the mischief. But it came out that 

 though there was a hunt for rats, which were so numerous 

 according to the statement of his learned friend, only three 

 could be found in the whole of the day ! Such a defence he 

 really considered to be ridiculous, and all the jury had to 

 decide was the amount of damages. They would dis- 

 tinguish between the damage done by artificial stocking 

 and that by iiatural increase. The damage by rabbits in 

 1859 was 69/. 10s., out of the meadow moat and wheat 

 crops; to the turnips and clover about 15L or 16/.; and 

 the entire amouut of damage was 85/. 10s , so that the plain- 

 tiff had allowed 35/. lOs. for the natural increase of the 

 game, and only asked for 50/., the largest sum the court 

 could award, and which they considered to be not an un- 

 reasonable sura. 



His Honour said the jury should be bear in mind that 

 for the damage done by the game which was naturally pro- 

 pagative, there was no right of action against the defen- 

 dants. The question of game was becoming every j-ear 

 more important — just, indeed, as progress was made in agri- 

 cultural improvement. It was evidently becoming more 

 expen-ive to a farmer to maintain his crops. There was, he 

 thought, a prima facie case for the jury to work upon, as to 

 damage done by turning the rabbits down on the estate. 

 That would be an action for trespass, and for that trespass 

 all would be liable who had taken a part in it. In consider- 

 ing the consequences of the turning down of the game, it 

 would be hard to distinguish between the injury done by 

 the game so turned dowu and that done by the game ac- 

 tually on the estate. If the rabbits were turned not on the 

 farm but on the adjoining plantati.on, with the design that 

 they should feed on the farm, and increase by their suste- 

 nance on Mr. Rome's crops, and did, in point of fact, feed 

 upon them, then, though not actually turned down on the 

 land injured, some would think the parties would be liable ; 

 the jury would decide that question. There had been a 

 suggestion made that many more than those proved to have 

 been bought had been turned down. Now, those actually 

 bought, if turned down, could not have produced the great 

 increase. The whole district was preserved. Game did not 

 stay in one place. They went where there was the best 

 food. What became of the rabbits which Fowler sold to 

 one of the defendants had not been ascertained. Whittle 

 appeared to be an independent actor in that matter, and 



there was no evidence that he turned those rabbits down 

 on the farm. Would the jury go against Mr. Whittle or 

 against all the defendants? Were they satisfied that some 

 rabbits were turned out into the field or wood, with the in- 

 tention that thej' should iucrease the number of rabbits, and 

 they should feed on the crops.'' If so, what was the 

 amount of damage resulting therefrom? As to the in- 

 crease of the pheasants, there was evidence that Blackledge 

 did get eggs and young birds, aud artificially bring them 

 up. But even supposing he did so, nothing had been said 

 about damage done by birds. As to the setting of the traps, it 

 might be considered whether that was not a necessary protec- 

 tion of game from the auimalsof prey, called by the wit- 

 nesses vermin, and which prowled about and would destroy 

 the game. If so, the traps set for that purpose were neces- 

 sarily incidental to the preservation of the game itself, and 

 anything incidental thereto was incidental to the rights of 

 the gamekeeper himself, and would be implied, though not 

 stated in the terms of the lease. If not necessary, why were 

 the traps set on the land ? for Blackledge says they were set 

 in the woods. It did not appear, however, that there was 

 any actual damage resulting from the setting of the traps. 

 Thejury would consider, first, were the rabbits turned out 

 to stock the estate, and what was the amount of damage 

 done; second, were the birds turned out in like manner; 

 and third, did the traps set on the land constitute a tres- 

 pass, or were they necessary for the protection of the game? 

 if thejury were not satisfied that the rabbits and birds were 

 turned out for the purposes named, or that the traps were 

 not necessary, then he (the judge) thought the defendant 

 would he entitled to the verdict. 



The Jury then retired, and after a lapse of twenty 

 minutes, returned with a verdict for the Plaintiff for £25, 

 half the amount claimed. 



Mr. Mayhew asked his Honour to consent that the ex- 

 ecution of the verdict should stand over till the next court 

 day, in order to allow his clients, the defendants, to con- 

 sult as to their future procedure in the matter, 



His Honour agreed to the application. The case occu- 

 pied from eleven o'clock in the morning until nearly four 

 o'clock in the afternoon. — Preston Guardian. 



RABBITS NOT GAME. 



Sir,— As a farmer, with many rabbits on my farm, some of 

 which I kill for my own use, olhem I sell, and occasionally 

 employ a man to ferret them, on reading the new game act I 

 became alarmed, and I consulted some friends, who thought, 

 as I did, that I could not, either by myself or servants, kill 

 any rabbits on my own ground without a licence. I hereto- 

 fore thought them to be chattel property ; consequently, to 

 be sure on the matter, I wrote to the Comniissioners of In- 

 land Revenue, London, and I herewith send you a copy of 

 their answer, as it may quiet the minds of many of your sub- 

 scribera. 



" Inland Revenue, London, 



" Sir,— I am to acquaint you in reply to your inquiry of 

 the 30th ult , that a certificate is not necessary to authoriee 

 the taking, killing, or selling of rabbits. — I am, sir, your obe- 

 dient servant (signed), Wm. Cobbett, Assistant Secretary." 



Nov. 5, 1860. 



We (Mercury) have looked into the New Game Act, which 

 is dated 14th August, 1860, (23 and 24 Vict., c. 90) from 

 which we take the following abstract : — 

 1st section repeals the former duties on certificates to kill and 



deal in game. 

 2ud section levies new duties in lieu thereof. It provides that 



a licence must be taken by " every person who shall use 



any dog, gun, net, or other engine for the purpose of taking 



or kitting any game whatever, or any woodcock, snipe, 



quail, landrail, or any conies, or any deer, or shall assist 



thereat. 

 Sec. 4 provides a penalty of £20 for neglecting such licence. 

 The following are exemptions: 1, The taking of woodcocks 



and snipes with nets or springes in Great Britain. 

 2. The taking or destroying of conies in Great Britain by the 



proprietor of any warren or of any inclosed ground what- 



