THE GROUND GAME ACT 177 



increase, the fault is his own. But, if his crops are 

 damaged by rabbits reared and allowed to increase in 

 plantations or coverts within and around the farm 

 and which are not in his occupation, he certainly has 

 a claim of damages (for the loss sustained) against 

 his landlord. In the Scotch case of Inglis v. Moir's 

 Tutors and Gunnis, where a tenant brought an action 

 against both landlord and shooting tenant for damage 

 done to crops by rabbits, it was held that the landlord 

 was liable, but not the shooting tenant, Lord Justice 

 Clerk in giving judgment said : ' As regards the case 

 against the game tenant, if he did any personal act 

 to the injury of the agricultural tenant (such as tread- 

 ing down corn or breaking fences) he would be 

 responsible. But he is under no obligation to kill 

 rabbits for the benefit of the farmer. There is no 

 mutual obligation between them. Neither the 

 omission to kill rabbits, nor the destruction of 

 vermin, which are matters entirely within the powder 

 of the game tenant to do or omit, can give the agri- 

 cultural tenant any just cause of action. His claim 

 lies against his landlord under the contract with him, 

 which is neither enlarged nor restricted by the rights 

 given to the tenant of the shooting.' ^ 



• See reports of claims for damage done by rabbits, Cameron 

 V. Drummond, The Field, February 4, 1888, and Smith v. 

 Brand, The Field, November 9, 1895. 



N 



