1 88 THE RABBIT 



no law to prevent him. At the same time, cases of this 

 kind are open to grave suspicion, and slight evidence of 

 an intention to evade the Act and obtain a few days' 

 shooting on pretence of killing the rabbits for the 

 benefit of the tenant, might warrant a conviction for 

 trespass in pursuit of game. And this was the result 

 in a similar case tried in another county. 



In January 1883 the magistrates at Otley, York- 

 shire, had a case before them, Taylor v. Bradley, in 

 which this question was raised. The plaintiff, who 

 was the shooting tenant over lands in the occupation 

 of one Laycock, summoned the defendant (a nail 

 manufacturer employing about twenty hands) for 

 shooting rabbits on the said land. Defendant pro- 

 duced an authority in writing from the occupier 

 Laycock, and the latter stated in evidence that he 

 paid defendant five shillings for his services, and 

 presented him with a rabbit. The question raised 

 was whether Bradley was a person bona fide employed 

 for reward for the purpose of killing ground game. 

 The magistrates decided that he was not, and fined 

 him 20s. and costs. 



As to the formal appointment of a professional 

 rabbit-killer, it may happen that a farmer is the 

 ' occupier ' of two or more farms belonging to one 

 owner, and may be in doubt whether he can appoint 



