APPENDIX TO PART THIRD DIVISION I. 121 



was insisted that Bridge Park was an ancient legal park, and that the 

 deer therein, by the law of the land, were not personal property, but 

 formed part of the inheritance. * * * 



For the plaintiffs it was submitted that, although E ridge Park might 

 originally have been a park in the strict sense of the term, having all 

 the incidents of a legal park — vert, venison, and inclosure — it had 

 ceased to bear that character, by reason of the manner in which it had 

 in modern times been dealt with, it being essential that the boundaries 

 of an ancient park should be strictly preserved, and that, by the mode 

 in which the deer in question had been treated, they had ceased to be 

 ferae naturae, and had become mere personal property, like sheep or any 

 other domestic animals. 



The learned judge, in his summing up, told the jury that the main 

 question for them to consider was, whether the deer in dispute were to 

 be looked upon as wild, or as tame and reclaimed; and that it had 

 been laid down by the best authorities upon the subject that deer in a 

 park, couies in a warren, and doves in a dovecot, generally speaking, 

 go with the inheritance to the heir, or, in a case like the present, where 

 the estate does not go exactly in heirship, but under the limitations of 

 an act of parliament, to the person next entitled under the parliamen- 

 tary settlement; but that the rule was subject to this exception — that, 

 if the animals are no longer in their wild state, but are so reduced as 

 to be considered tame and reclaimed, in that case they go to the exec- 

 utors, and not to the heir. He then proceeded, in substance, as fol- 

 lows: A large body of evidence has been laid before you, for the pur- 

 pose of satisfying you that Eridge Park was an ancient park, having 

 all the incidents and juivileges of an ancient park, to which rights 

 formerly appertained which are now comparatively valueless. But the 

 question will not turn upon whether Eridge was or was not an ancient 

 park; though, at the same time, it may be desirable if you are able to 

 form an opinion upon it, that you should state it. Undoubtedly, one 

 who has an ancient park, having the rights and incidents of a legal 

 park, ought to preserve the boundaries within which he claims to exer- 

 cise those rights; and probably there can be no doubt that, if the 

 boundaries are so effaced that they can not be distinctly ascertained, 

 his franchise, as against the Crown, would be lost. 



But that is a matter which does not, as it seems to me, very much 

 concern the question now before us, because, though some rights might 

 be forfeited by the destruction of the ancient boundaries, still the nature 

 of the animals would remain unchanged. That deer, when caught and 

 inclosed in a pen, would pass to the executors there can be no doubt, 

 and probably if animals of this sort were inclosed in a small field, well 

 fenced round and well kept, it could hardly be said that they were not 

 so far reduced into immediate possession as to become personal property. 

 It is quite admitted, upon the evidence on the one side and on the other, 

 that there have been, from time to time, additions made to what formerly 

 constituted Eridge Park, though there is some difference as to the 

 quantity. And observing upon the documentary evidence put in on 

 the part of the defendant, the learned judge said, with reference to the 

 extract from Domesday Book and to the inquisition taken in the reign 

 of Edward the Third upon the death of Hugh de Spencer, that at that 

 period, when the forest laws were in full vigor, whenever a "park" 

 was mentioned it must be understood to mean a legal park. And he 

 concluded by asking the opinion of the jury upon two questions which 

 he gave them in writing: first, whether Eridge Park was an ancient 

 park, with all the incidents of a legal park; secondly, whether the 



