153 



supported on the gromul of misdirection. It is not contended that 

 there was no evideiiceiittobe submitted fo tiie jury, and tliat, therefore, 

 the plaintiff ougiit to have been nonsuited : but it is said tluit the weight 

 of evidence was against the verdict. In considering wlietlier the evi- 

 dence warranted the verdict upon the issue, whetlier the deer wave. 

 tamed or rechiimed, the observations made by Lord (ihief Justice Willes 

 in tlie case of Danies vs. Powell^ are deserving of attention. Tlie dif- 

 ference in regard to the mode and object of lieeping deer in modern 

 times from that Avhich anciently prevailed, as pointed out by Lord Chief 

 Justice Willes, can not be overlooked. It is truly stated that ornament 

 and profit are the sole objects for w4iich deei- are now ordinarily kept, 

 whether in ancient legal parks, or in modern inclosures so called; the 

 instances being very rare in which deer in such places are kept and used 

 for sport J indeed, their whole management differing very little, if at all, 

 from that of sheep, or of any other animals kept for profit. And in tlds 

 case, the evidence before adverted to was that the deer were regularly 

 fed in the winter, and does with young were watched; the fawns taken 

 as soon as dropped, and marked; selections from the herd made from 

 time to time, fattened in places prepared fur them, and afterwards sold 

 or consumed, with no diii'erence of circumstauce than what attached, as 

 before stated, to animals kept for profit and food. As to some being 

 wild and some tame, as it is said, individual animals no doubt differed, 

 as individuals in almost every race of animals are found, under any 

 circumstances, to differ in the degreeoftameness that belongs to them 

 Of deer kept in stalls, some would be found tame and gentle, and others 

 quite irreclaimable, in the sense of temper and quietness. Upon a 

 question whether deer are tamed and reclaimed, each case must depend 

 upon the particular facts of it; and in this case the court think tliat 

 the facts were such as were projDcr to be submitted to the jury; and, as 

 it was a question of fact for the jury, the court can not perceive any 

 sufficient grounds to warrant it in saying that the jury have come to a 

 wrong conclusion upon the evidence, and do not feel authorized to dis- 

 turb the verdict; and the rule for a new trial must, therefore, be dis^ 

 charged." 



In Blades vs. ITiggs, {13 C. B. N. 8., Si4), in Exchequer Chamber, on 

 api)eal, which was an action for the conversion of rabbits, witli a count 

 for assault, and which, strictly, only involved the question whether 

 game found, killed, and taken by a trespasser upon the land of another 

 became the property of the owner of the soil, ratione soli, oi was the 



