APPENDIX TO PART THIRD DIVISION I. 123 



laratiori were not captured, reclaimed, and tamed, or kept confined in 

 inclosed grounds, as alleged; lastly, as to the excepted backs, does, and 

 fawns, the defendant paid the sum of £85 into court. 



Issue was joined on these pleas. 



The cause was tried before the late Mr. Justice Coltman, at the sit- 

 tings in Middlesex, after Hilary term, 1847, when the jury found a 

 verdict for the plaintiffs upon the issues — testator possessed — plaintiffs 

 possessed — and that the deer were tame and reclaimed. 



A rule nisi was afterwards obtained by the defendant in the follow- 

 ing Easter term to show cause why there should not be a new trial 

 upon the ground of misdirection, that there had been no sufficient ver- 

 dict found by the jury, and that, if a sufficient verdict had been found, 

 it was contrary to the evidence. 



Several questions arose upon the trial, — first, whether the land 

 called Eridge Park, in the county of Sussex, was an ancient legal park; 

 secondly, whether it continued to be a legal park, or whether it had 

 become disparked by the addition of other lands to the original park, 

 and by the removal, decay, or destruction of the fences, so as to destroy 

 the evidence of the boundaries of such ancient park; and whether the 

 deer kept in such park had been tamed and reclaimed. 



In support of the defendant's case various ancient documents were 

 given in evidence to establish that the place in question was an ancient 

 legal park, and that from a very early period down to the time of the 

 death of the testator there had always been a considerable herd of deer 

 maintained in the park. And it was also proved that the place in 

 question, consisting of upwards of 700 acres of land, was, in many parts, 

 of a very wild and rough description. It also appeared by the evidence 

 that certain lands had been added to the original park; and there was 

 some contrariety of evidence in regard to the state of the fences. 



It was also proved that a considerable quantity of deer' had the 

 range of the park; and that some were tame, as it was called, and 

 others wild. What in particular the witnesses meant by the distinc- 

 tions of tame and wild was not explained; but it rather seemed that 

 their meaning was that some were less shy and timid than others. It 

 appeared that the deer very rarely escaped out of the boundaries; that 

 they were attended by keepers, and were fed in the winter with hay, 

 beans, and other food; that a few years back a quantity of deer had 

 been brought from some other place and turned into Eridge Park ; 

 that the does were watched, and the fawns, as they dropped, were 

 constantly marked, so that their age at a future time might be ascer- 

 tained; that, at certain times, a number of deer were selected from 

 the herd, caught with the assistance of dogs, and were put into cer- 

 tain parts of the park, which were then inclosed from the rest, of suffi- 

 cient extent to depasture and give exercise to the selected deer, which 

 were fattened and killed, either for consumption, or for sale to venison 

 dealers; that the deer were usually killed by being shot; and that there 

 was a regular establishment of slaughterhouses for preparing and 

 dressing them for use. 



Such being the general effect of the evidence, the learned judge 

 stated to the jury, that, by the general law, deer in a park went to the 

 heir-at-law of the owner of the park; but that deer which were tame 

 and reclaimed became personal property, and went by law to the personal 

 representatives of the owner of them, and not to the heir of the owner 

 of the park in which they were kept. And the learned judge left it to 

 the jury, whether the place in question was proved by the evidence to 

 have been an ancient park, with the legal rights of a park, and told 



