204 THE RABBIT 



owners occupying their own land, and on the part of 

 the defendant (an owner) it was urged that the Act 

 applied to occupiers only. The magistrates were 

 unable to agree as to the true construction of the 

 section, and decided to dismiss the summons, and 

 state a case for the opinion of a superior court. 

 Accordingly in the Queen's Bench Division on 

 November 26, 1885, before Justices Mathew and 

 Smith, the case came on for argument, when the 

 appeal was dismissed with costs, the judges being of 

 opinion that Section 6 of the Act does not apply to 

 owners who occupy their own land. 



It is a well-known principle in courts of justice that 

 the meaning of an Act of Parliament must be based 

 upon the wording of the Act, and not upon the sup- 

 posed intention of those who framed it. Nevertheless, 

 it is curious that judges so frequently refer to what they 

 consider the manifest intention of the Legislature, and 

 yet give a construction that is very different from what 

 was explained in Parliament. 



So in the present case, Mr. Justice Mathew ob- 

 served : ' I think it is clear from the wording of the Act 

 alone, that the Legislature had no intention of restrict- 

 ing the undoubted rights which landlords possessed 

 before the Act was passed to deal with their land and 

 kill the game thereon in any way they liked.' 



