PKOPERTY IN GAME. 367 



spiracij to dpstroij foxes and otJicr vermin, that the gentry of the county 

 (Cheshire) in which tlie indictment was found are addicted to fox-hunting 

 {Rex V. King). 



In the case of Sutton v. Moody, it was said by Holt C.J. tliat " If A. 

 start a hare in tJie ground of B., and hunt and kill it there, the inoferty 

 contimies all IM lohile in B. ; but if A. start a hare in the ground of B., 

 and hunt it into the ground of C, and kill it there, the property is in A. 

 the hunter ; but A. is liahle to an action of trespass for himting in the 

 grounds as well of B, as ofCP The latter part of this dictum was relied 

 upon for the plaintiff in Churchward v, Studdy, which was an action 

 of trespass for carrying away a dead hare. The plaintiff had part 

 management of the hounds, and was hunting them, when they started 

 a hare in a third person's grounds, and followed her into defendant's 

 grounds, where she was seized, quite spent, by one of the dogs between 

 the legs of a labourer, who took her up alive ; and she was killed by 

 the defendant. The plaintiff demanded the hare ; and the labourer 

 said he had taken it up not for his own use, but in aid of the hunters ; 

 but the defendant refused to give it up. Lord Ellenhorough C.J. con- 

 sidered " that the plaintiff, through the agency of his dogs, had reduced 

 the hare into his possession : that makes an end of the question, even 

 though the labourer had first taken hold of it before it was actually 

 caught by the plaintiff's dogs ; yet it now appears that he took it for 

 the benefit of the hunters, as an associate of them, which is the same as 

 if it had been taken by one of the dogs. If, indeed, he had taken it up 

 for the defendant before it was caught by the dogs, that would have 

 been different ; or even if he had taken it as an indifferent person in 

 the nature of a stake-holder." 



No actio7i iti ge)ieral lies for an involuntary trespass ,- and it is laid 

 down in 2 Eoll. Ab. 566 pi. 1, that if cattle in passage on the highway 

 eat herbs or corn raptim et sparsim against the will of the owner, it will 

 excuse the trespass. So in Millen v. Frandrye, where sheep trespassed 

 on a neighbour's land, and he drove them out with a dog, it was held 

 that trespass could not be brought. If a person goes along a footpath, 

 and his dog happens to escape from him, and run into a paddock, and 

 pull down a deer against his will, it is no trespass {Beckwith v. Sluir- 

 dike). kni^ij^Pf Parke J., a dog jumping into a field without the consent 

 of its master is not a trespass for which an action will lie {Brown v. 

 Giles). A plea to an action for trespass for killing the plaintiffs dog 

 cannot justify the act by stating that the lord of the manor was pos- 

 sessed of a close, and that the defendant, as his gamekeeper, killed the 

 dog, when running after liares in that close, for the preservation of the 

 hares ; such plea not even stating that it was necessary to kill the doo- 



