HUNTING AND TRESPASSING. 359 



taken ouly where there is the cousent of those who are 

 likely to be inj\irecl by them, but they must be necessarily 

 subservient to the consent of others. There may be such 

 a public nuisance by a noxious animal as may justify the 

 running him to his earth, but then you cannot justify the 

 digging for him afterwards ; that has been ascertained 

 and settled by the law. But even if an animal may be 

 pursued with Dogs, it does not follow that fifty or sixty 

 people have therefore a right to follow the Dogs and 

 trespass on other people's lands. I cannot see what it is 

 that is contended for by the defendant. The only case 

 which will at all bear him out is that of Gundry v. 

 Feltham {//) ; if it be necessary I shouKl be glad that that 

 case should be fully considered. I have looked into the 

 case in the Year Book (?') ; that seems to be nothing more 

 than the case of a person who had chased a Stag from the 

 forest into his own land, where he killed it ; and on an 

 action of Trespass being brought against the forester who 

 came and took the Stag, he justified, that he had made 

 fresh suit after the Stag ; and it was held that he might 

 state that he was justified, and the plaintiff took nothing 

 by his wi'it. This is the case upon which that of Gundry 

 V. Feltham (h) is built, but it is founded only on an obiter 

 dictum of justice Brook, and it does not appear to me 

 much rehed on. But even in that case it is emphatically 

 said by the Judge, that a man may not hunt for his 

 2}leasure or his profit, but only for the good of the common 

 weal, and to destroy such noxious animals as are injurious 

 to the common weal. Therefore, according to this case, 

 the good of the public must be the governing motive" (k). 

 The Jur}^, under his Lordship's direction, found a verdict 

 for the plaintiff. 



And in an action against a Huntsman for hunting over Huntsman 

 the lands of another, Lord EUenborough, C. J., held that liable for^da- 

 damages might be recovered, not only for the mischief im- th.e^eld.'^'^ "^ 

 mediately occasioned by the defendant himself, but also by 

 the concourse of people who accompanied him (/). 



And in another case it was laid down by Lord Ten- Master of 

 terden, C. J., that if a gentleman sends out his Hounds and Hounds, when 

 his Servants, and invites other gentlemen to hunt with him, for^the'field. 

 although he does not himself go on the lands of another, 



(A) Gundry v. Feltham, 1 T. R. ford Summer Assizes, ISflO, cited 



337. in Cliitty on G-anie Laws, 31. 

 (0 12 Hen. 8, p. 9. (0 llumo v. Ohlacrc, 1 Stark. N. 



(A) Earl of Essex v. Copcl, Hert- P. C. 351. 



