2IO THE RABBIT 



retains a similar right. Both may employ dogs, 

 ferrets, traps, nets, and snares ; in fact, whatever 

 method is legal to the one is legal to the other, unless 

 the Act states otherwise. The fact that no mention 

 of ' ferreting ' is made in the Act shows that the right 

 remains unaltered ; for if the landlord had been de- 

 prived of such right, the Act would have stated it in 

 express terms. 



When an ' owner ' has let his shooting for a term, 

 he must be careful not to let before the expiration of 

 that term any portion of the same land to an agricul- 

 tural tenant who might claim as ' occupier ' a right to 

 kill the ground game. This happened in the case of 

 Reade v. Whitmore where a shooting tenant under 

 these circumstances brought an action against the 

 owner for breach of implied covenant for quiet enjoy- 

 ment, and the Court decided in his favour.^ 



This shows the necessity, when letting shooting 

 rights, of having a clear understanding as to the 

 ground game ; and an owner who may contemplate 

 a subsequent letting of some or all of the land for 

 agricultural purposes should expressly stipulate with 

 the shooting tenant that such letting shall not be 

 deemed a breach of contract. The shooting tenant, 

 on the other hand, should ascertain whether the land 



' The Field, April 25, 1891. 



