APPENDIX TO CHRONICLE. 



299 



warrant was a justification : but 

 his lordship wishing the warrant 

 to be read, and it appearing that it 

 only authorized defendant torequire 

 the plaintifF to desist,and notify the 

 names of those who attended, and 

 if any person rioted, or manifested 

 a disposition to riot, to arrestWood, 

 and the persons so rioting, or ma- 

 nifesting a disposition to riot : his 

 lordship remarked, that it merely 

 authorized defendant to require 

 plainiifF to desist, which, had not 

 been done, and that it did not ap- 

 pear that the plaintifF was rioting. 



It was then contended, that as 

 it was an illegal assembly, all those 

 of whom it had consisted having 

 been since convicted, every per- 

 son in it was answerable for the 

 acts of the rest. 



Lord Ellenborough. — God for- 

 bid that a man who performs his 

 devotion erroneously, whether in 

 the ignorance of the law, or even 

 with knowledge, should be liable 

 to such severe penalties. It was 

 the duty of the defendant to have 

 notified his rarrant to the plaintifF, 

 and to have required him to desist. 

 It was true that the damages were 

 high, but he recollected the case in 

 which a person had recovered the 

 same amount, because defendant 

 had struck him a blow on the head 

 in a playhouse with a cane,thinking 

 him to be a servant, and out of 

 his place, and the Court refused a 

 rule nisi to Mr. Justice Wilson, 

 then at the bar, for a new trial : 

 that on the whole, the damages 

 -were not 60 evidently too large as 

 ■<io induce the Court to exercise 

 ^err discretion in granting a new 

 •trial : and there was nothing else to 

 induce the Court to grant the rule. 

 —^RiUe refused. 



Game Case.— Earl of Aboyne t. 

 limes. — The following singular 

 game case was lately decided in 

 the second division of the Edin- 

 burgh Court of Session : — 



Mr. Innes, of Balnacraig, holds 

 an estate of Ballogie, in Aberdeen- 

 shire, with the liberty and privi- 

 lege of fowling in the forest of 

 Birse, which had been conferred 

 on his predecessors by the bishop 

 of Aberdeen, to whom the pro- 

 perty of the forest anciently be- 

 longed. This forest is now the 

 property of the earl of Aboyne, 

 and as the game which it con- 

 tains is an object of considerable 

 importance, his lordship had re- 

 course to legal proceedings, for the 

 purpose of putting a stop to cer- 

 tain encroachments in the way of 

 sporting, which had been made by 

 neighbouring heritors : and with 

 respect to Mr. Innes's privilege, 

 he contended, that it was of a per- 

 sonal nature, and could not be com- 

 municated to friends and game- 

 keepers, or at leasi that it could not 

 be communicated unless Mr. Irt- 

 nes was himself of the party. That 

 gentleman, on the other hand, 

 maintained that his right was en- 

 titled to a liberal interpretation, 

 and that he was entitled to com- 

 municate it to any friends whom 

 he might choose, as well as to his 

 gamekeepers, and such had been 

 the manner in which it had been 

 exercised by his predecessors from 

 time immemorial, and he referred 

 to the ancient forest laws in sup- 

 port of his plea. Lord Meadow- 

 bank, before whom the cause ori- 

 ginally came, considered Mr. In- 

 nes's right as one of a very unusual 

 nature; but, as it was admitted 

 by the earl that this gentleman 



