highway itself as before explained. If, however, a shooting 

 estate is bounded by a public road a man may, with the 

 consent of the occupier of the land on the opposite side 

 of the road, stand on that side of the road and shoot the 

 ^ame as it comes over without being guilty of a trespass 

 in pursuit. 



It is an offence, however, for anyone to fire a gun 

 within 50 feet of the centre of a carriage road in such 

 manner as to endanger or interrupt a passenger. 



As a ditch presumably and usually belongs to the 

 owner of the land on the far side of the hedge, if a man 

 stands or sits in a ditch with a view of shooting game 

 coming over or through the hedge from someone else's 

 land on the other side, he will be guilty of trespass m 

 pursuit if his intention was to shoot before the game 

 adtually crossed the ditch. If his intention was to shoot 

 after it had crossed so as to be over or on his own land, 

 he probably could not be convided. 



A tenant of land where the shooting is reserved cannot 

 be guilty of a trespass in pursuit on the land ; but if he 

 takes or pursues game other than hares he is liable to a 

 similar penalty and in addition to not exceeding £ 1 a head 

 of the game adually killed. This does not apply to birds 

 not game (woodcock, snipe, etc.), and in respect of these 

 he is only liable to a common law action. 



It is a good defence to an adlon for common law 

 trespass that the alleged trespasser had the authority of 

 the occupier, but on a prosecution for trespass in pursuit 

 where the shooting is reserved or let away from the land, 

 the leave of the occupier is no defence except in the case 

 of a written authority to take ground game. 



30 



