3G6 EULE AS TO HUNTING TRESPASSES. 



commit in so doing, unless he distinctly desires them not to go on 

 those lands ; and if (as in the present case) he does not so desire them, 

 lie is answerable, in point of law, for the damage that they do. With 

 regard to the defendant's attempt to go into the plaintiff's barn, it is 

 clear that the plaintiflFhad a right to refuse any person's going into it, 

 if he chose to do so, Whether it might be discreet in him is another 

 thing ; but undoubtedly he had a right to say tliat they should not go 

 into his barn, and if they did so they are trespassers." 



And so it was ruled by Lawrance J., in the case of H'dl v. Walker, 

 that where a person goes out sport inrj ivith Ms friends, and ivilfidlij teads 

 them on to another's land, he is equally guilty of a trespass, although 

 he may remain off the laud whilst his friends go on it, as if he had 

 entered himself or sent his dog. Here the defendant Walker and 

 several otlier gentlemen being out sporting, attended by tlie other 

 defendant (Walker's servant), two of the party went into the Withy 

 Bed, and shot several times, the rest remaining in the adjoining high- 

 road. As the pheasants rose very fast, the defendant ordered his servant 

 to go and fetch his dog out, which was done. The two shooters swore 

 that they only entered the Withy Bed, and that the defendants held 

 the horses outside, and did not even let Walker's dogs enter. On 

 cross-examination, it appeared that Walker having had notice to 

 keep off the land, before the party came to the Withy Bed, told the 

 shooters that he would show them where jjlenty of game was to be 

 found ; and he took them to the plaintiffs close, and pointed that out 

 as the place. But^w Alderson B. : " If I give a man leave to go on 

 a field over which I have no right, and he goes, that will not make me 

 a trespasser; but if I desire him to go and do it. and then he does it, 

 that is a doing of it by my authority, which is quite a different thing, 

 and I should be liable as a joint trespasser. An order to go on land, 

 in spite of the owner, is a great deal more than leave and licence, it is 

 an authority " {Robinson v. Yaia/ltion). 



And the Court of Queen's Bench also held in Merest v. , that 



£.500 were not excessive damages for a tresjxiss in siiorting, persevered 

 in defiance of notice, and accompanied with offensive language. The 

 defendant (who had been sporting) left his carriage on the road, and 

 told the plaintiff, witli an oath, that he would slioot with his party in 

 spite of his notice ; fired several times at the birds, which the plaintiff 

 found, and proposed to borrow shot of him when he had exhausted his 

 own belt, besides threatening, in his capacity of magistrate, to commit 

 him, and defying him to bring an action. Heath J. cited a case where 

 £r)00 was given for merely knocking a man's hat off And it is no 

 reason for changing the venue, in an indictment for a supposed con- 



