196 THE RABBIT 



Monmouth, in deciding the converse case of Morgan 

 V. Jackson, where an occupier brought an action to 

 recover rent from a shooting tenant to whom he had 

 let his right to the ground game, and who pleaded in 

 defence that the contract was void under Section 3 of 

 the Act. On appeal, however, to the Divisional Court 

 of Queen's Bench, it was held by Mr. Justice Day and 

 Mr. Justice Wright, that Section 3 was intended only 

 to prevent a tenant and landlord from combining to- 

 gether to defeat the Act. There was nothing in that 

 section (they said) to prevent the tenant (who was en- 

 titled otherwise than in pursuance of the Act to kill 

 and take ground game) being just as free as he would 

 have been before the Act, and, in their opinion, Sec- 

 tion 3 did not apply, since it merely prevented a 

 tenant from surrendering his right to his landlord.^ 



It is curious that the limitation here given by the 

 judges — that Section 3 was only intended to prevent 

 collusion between landlord and tenant — was expressly 

 considered when the Bill was in Committee. Mr. 

 Chaplin moved to give the occupier of land of which 

 he was also the owner, power to sublet ; but Sir 

 William Harcourt said he could not consent to allow 

 the right to kill ground game to be separable from the 

 occupation of the land. Mr. Chaplin afterwards moved 

 * Reported in The Field, February 23, and May 4, 1895. 



