314 ANNUAL REGISTER, 1809. 



witness distinctly stated, that he 

 had been asked by the defendant, 

 Mr. Capel, not to destroy foxes. 



Lord EUenborough interrupted 

 the further progress of the cause, 

 observing, that it was a contention 

 against all nature and conviction. 

 Could it be supposed that gentle- 

 men hunted for the purpose of kill- 

 ing vermin, and not for their diver- 

 sion ? Could the jury be desired to 

 say upon their oaths, that the de- 

 fendant was actuated by any other 

 motive than a desire to enjoy the 

 pleasures of the chace? He had 

 wished to suffer the cause to go to 

 a certain extent beforeheexpressed 

 his opinion upon the subject. Even 

 if the dogs might be allowed to run, 

 was there any pretence for saying, 

 that where the dogs did not go, any 

 person could ride and break down 

 the fences? The defendant said, 

 that he had not committed the tres- 

 pass for the sake of the diversion of 

 the chace, but as the only effectual 

 way of killing and destroying the 

 fox. Now, could any man of com- 

 mon sense hesitate in saying, that 

 the principal motive was not the 

 killing vermin, but the sport ? It 

 was a sport the law of the land 

 would not justify, and there should 

 not be a new law of the land ac- 

 commodated to the pleasures and 

 amusements of these gentlemen. 

 The pleasures of the chase might 

 be taken when there was the con- 

 sent of others who were injured bj' 

 them, but they must be subservient 

 to such consent. There might be 

 such a nuisance by a noxious ani- 

 mal as would justify the attempt to 

 destroy him, by running him to his 

 earth, but that would not justify 

 the digging for him afterwards — 

 that had been settled to be law — 

 but even if an animal might be 



pursued with dogs, it did not follow 

 that fifty or sixty persons had there- 

 fore a right to trespass on other 

 people's lands. He could not see 

 what there was in the case of Fen- 

 tham V. Grundy, 1st Term Reports, 

 to warrant the opinion that any per- 

 son might follow the hounds over 

 the lands of another. He had look- 

 ed into that case, and had referred 

 to the others quoted in it. Even in 

 the case chiefly relied on, it was 

 stated that a man might not hunt 

 for hispleasure or profit, butonly to 

 destroy such noxious animals aswere 

 injurious to the common 'wealth; 

 therefore, the good to the public 

 must be the governmg motive. He 

 would ask the jury whether that 

 could have been the motive of the 

 defendant ? The last witness had 

 expressly stated, that he wished 

 rather to nourish these noxious 

 animals than to destroy them. 



Mr. Serjeant Best. — After what 

 your lordship has said, I will not 

 occupy the time of your lordship 

 or the jury with one word more. 



Lord EUenborough. — There 

 should be nominal damages; it is 

 only meant to quiet a right — the 

 plaintiff's counsel tell me they will 

 be satisfied with nominal damages, 

 therefore nominal damages will do. 

 If this trespass is repeated it will be 

 a different thing. 



The jury consulted a short time, 

 and returned a verdict for the plain- 

 tiff, with forty shillings damages. 



The foreman stated, that it was 

 the wish of the jury to give exem- 

 plary damages, but understanding 

 that his lordship and the plaintiff 

 acquiesced, they had only given 

 forty shillings. 



Lord Ellenborough- — You do 

 very right to find forty shillings— 

 though in this case, as there is a 



special 



