304 AEEEST WHEN JUSTIFIABLE. 



strictly confined to the owner of the property injured, but is extended 

 to all persons who have a hona fide belief that they fill the character 

 mentioned in the statute, and act bona fide under that belief. Most of 

 the authorities were considered in Hvyhes y. BucMcmd, where the ser- 

 vants of the owner of a fishery, lona fide believing the plaintiff to be 

 fishing within the boundary of their master's fishery, caused him to be 

 apprehended, although in fact he was not within the boundary. The 

 same rule was laid down in Beechci/ \. Sides and Rtidd \. Scott ; and 

 there is no doubt that those decisions are correct, for no benefit would 

 be conferred by the statue if it were to be confined to those persons 

 only who have the legal power to an-est. The only apparent difficulty 

 in the present case arose out of Parrhujton v. Moore, to which refer- 

 ence was made in the course of the argument ; but that case, on a 

 closer inspection, has no bearing whatever upon the present. The 

 only question there was, whether the defendant was jiist/fied in arrest- 

 ing the plaintiff, who was in'hnCi facie a trespasser, but who, it appeared, 

 had acted under the bona fide belief that he had a right to do what he 

 did : and the Court there held that the defendant was not warranted in 

 arresting him. That distinguishes that case from the present, and 

 leaves us to the other authorities, and the later case of Hughes v. Buck- 

 land leaves no doubt upon the matter. These observations do not 

 apply to justices, as in such case the protection is only given nomi- 

 natim to those who actually fill that character ; and the same with 

 respect to certain cases of trustees and commissioners ; but by the 

 present Act, this protection is granted to every person who, when he 

 commits the trespass complained of, acts under the hona fide belief that 

 he is acting in pursuance of the statute." 



In Thomas (appt.) v. Evans (resp.), the appellant was convicted for 

 fishing for salmon with a net, the meshes of which were less than 2\ 

 inches broad. The net in question had its meshes H inches broad 

 from knot to knot. Statute 1 EUz. c. 17, s. 3, enacts that no one shall 

 take fish as therein mentioned, " but only with net or trammel, whereof 

 the mesh shall be 2\ inches broad," and does not describe what is the 

 meaning of the word " mesh" ; while stat. 3 Jac. I. c. 12, s. 2, which 

 speaks of a mesh of 3 inches, describes it as " 1|^ inches from knot to 

 knot." The Court of Queen's Bench held that the conviction was 

 right ; and that the meaning of the word " mesh " in stat, 1 Eliz. c. 17, 

 8. 3, is that every space between the threads of the net should be 2i 

 inches from one thread to the opposite thread, and that the superficial 

 area which bounded each mesh should be 2^ inches at least. 



It has been held that a person may justify trespass in following a fox 

 with hounds over the grounds of another, if he do no more than is neces- 



