NOTICE TO TRESPASSERS. 363 



manner as to cause injury to the plaintiff, the defendant rehes for a 

 defence upon the fact of the trade being carried on in a reasonable and 

 proper manner, the onus of proving that it is so carried on is on the 

 defendant, and not on the plaintiff of showing that it is not so carried 

 on, and the case does not come within the principle enunciated in 

 Hole V. Barlow (4 C. B. (N. S.) 437, 27 L. J. (N. S.), C. P. 207), {The 

 StocTcjJort Waterivorks ConijKimj v. Potter and Others). 



In Wanstead Local Board of Health (appt.) v. Hill {resp.) it was 

 decided by the Court of Common Pleas that brick-maldng is not an 

 offensive or noxious trade or business within sec. G4 of the Public 

 Health Act (11 & 12 Vict. c. 63). 



No notice is required by the 1 & 2 Will. IV. c. 32, under which 

 trespassers may be punished if in pursuit of game, on conviction before 

 a justice of the peace. Notice for an ordinary trespass must be served 

 either verbally or in writing, and should come from the tenant of the 

 particular parcel of land on which the trespass is committed. Game- 

 keepers or other persons deputed to do so may serve a notice, but they 

 must name the occupier as giving them orders. The form of notice 

 should be as follows : 



"■ To A. B., residing at , in the parish of , 



county of . I do Jterely give you notice not to come into or 



upon any of the lands or Woods occupied hy me in the parish of , 



and commonly known as the farm or woods of ; and in case 



of your so doing I shall j^'oceed against you as a ivilful trespasser. 



" Witness my hand this day of , 18 . A. D." 



The provisions against trespassers in the above act do ?iof apply to any 

 person hunting or coursing upt)n any lands with hounds or greyhounds^ 

 and being in fresh pursuit of any deer, hare, or fox already started upon 

 any other land. 



A 2)erson who causes the apprehension of another for a malicious 

 trespass to property, of which the former is the reversioner only, is 

 entitled to notice of action under the Malicious Trespass Act, 7 & 8 

 Geo. IV. c. 30 (which repeals 1 Geo. IV. c. 56), if he causes such appre- 

 hension under the hoimfide belief that he is acting in pursuance of the 

 statute {Hum v. Thornhorough). And per ParJce B. : " The defendant 

 was entitled to notice of action provided he Ijona fide believed that he 

 was acting in pursuance of the statute ; or according to the cases in 

 the Court of Queen's Bench, if he bona fide so believed, and had 

 reasonable ground for that belief. It was decided by the case of Hughes 

 V. BucJckcnd, that the protection afforded by the statute is not to be 



