THE GROUND GAME ACT 185 



pier, a farmer named Dunne, admitted authorising one 

 of them, but stated that he paid no wages or commis- 

 sion for the killing ; on the contrary, they paid him 

 something for the privilege, and they got the rabbits 

 for their own benefit. No authority in writing being 

 produced, the magistrates convicted. ^ The defendants, 

 thinking it important to obtain a legal decision whether 

 or not a game-dealer who pays a farmer for permission 

 to kill ground game and takes the game as his perqui- 

 site, is ' a person bond fide ev[\Y>^oye6. for reward,' asked 

 the magistrates to state a case for a superior court. 

 This they declined to do, their view being that no 

 question of law arose, but only an issue of fact, of 

 ' written authority ' or otherwise. Defendants then 

 moved for a rule for a mandamus requiring the magis- 

 trates to state a case, and the motion was argued before 

 the Divisional Court (Justices Hawkins and Wills) on 

 February 4, 1892. The Court held that the magis- 

 trates had decided the case upon an issue oifacf, viz : 

 whether the ' occupier ' had statutably employed the 

 defendants, and that they had evidence before them 

 upon which they could arrive at a conclusion in the 

 matter. They accordingly refused the application and 

 thereby supported the conviction.^ 



' Reported in The Field, November 4, 1891 

 -* The Field, February 13, 1S92. 



