FOLLOWERS OF HOUNDS TllESPASSERS. 365 



sary to kill the fox {Oimdry v. Fdtkam). So in PopMm (162) it was 

 adjudged that a man may start a fox on his own, and hunt him 

 into another man's land, because it is " a noysom creature to the com- 

 monwealth." 



But in the case of the Earl of Essex v. Cajwl, Lord EUenhoroufjh 

 C.J. denied the authority of Gimdrij v. FeWiam, and ruled i\\Qi persons 

 hunting for their own amuseinent over the lands of another are trespassers, 

 and may he ivarned off ; and the plaintiff will have full costs, though 

 the jury do not give 40s. damages. His Lordship said : " The de- 

 fendant stated, in his plea, that the trespass was not committed for the 

 purpose of diversion and amusement of the chase merely, but as the 

 only way and means of killing and destroying the fox. Now if you 

 were to put it upon this question, which was the principal motive ? 

 Can any man of common sense hesitate in saying that the principal 

 motive and inducement was, not the killing of vermin, but the enjoy- 

 ment of the sport and diversion of the chase. And we cannot make a 

 new law to suit the pleasures and amusements of those gentlemen 

 who choose to hunt for their own diversion. These pleasures are to 

 be taken only where there is the consent of those who are likely to be 

 injured by them, and they must be necessarily subservient to the con- 

 sent 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 can- 

 not 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 a right to follow 

 the dogs, and trespass on other people's lands." His Lordship also 

 ruled in Hame v. Oldacre, which was an action of trespass against the 

 huntsman of the Berkeley Hunc, that damages might be recovered, 

 not only for the mischief immediately occasioned by the defendant 

 himself, but also for that done by the concourse of people who accom- 

 panied him. 



TJie rule as to hunting trespasses was made still more stringent 

 in Baker v. Berkeley, where the plaintiff had £100 damages. The 

 defendant had received notice not to trespass on the plaintilf s land. 

 Some time after, his field went, and did damage to the amount of £23, 

 while he rode along a road to avoid it. The stag ran into a barn 

 followed by six couple of hounds, where it was worried ; and the 

 defendant, who was not allowed to go into the barn to rescue it, gave 

 the plaintiff a blow. Lord Tenterden C.J. ruled "that if a gentleman 

 sends out his hounds and servants, and invites other gentlemen to hunt 

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

 those other gentlemen do, he is answerable for tlie trespass they may 



