308 DOG DAMAGE FEASANT. 



for the preservation of the hares, nor that it was tlie dog of an unquali- 

 fied person {Vire v. Lord Caicdor). But it was held by Taunton J., in 

 Protheroe v. Mathews, which his Lordship (who mentioned Wadhurst v. 

 Damme and Barrington v. Turner as being in point) considered to be 

 very distinguishable from Yere v. Lord Cawdor, that the servant of the 

 ou'tier of an ancient 2MrJc may justify shootiny a day that is chasiny the 

 deer, although the dog may not have been chasing deer at the moment 

 when he was shot, if the chasing of the deer and the shooting of the 

 dog were all one and the same transaction, but that if the chasing was 

 at an end, and the dog would not have recommenced, the plaintiff ought 

 to have a verdict, which he had for one farthing. 



AVhere it was replied, in an action of trespass for taking plaintiff's 

 dog as a distress damaye feasant in a close, that the dog, when taken, 

 was in the actual possession of, and under the care of, and being used 

 by the plaintiff's son and servant, it was held by the Court of Quean's 

 Bench that the averments in the replication were insufficient as applied 

 to a dog, to show such user of it as exempted it from seizure {Bunch 

 V. Kenninytun). And 2)er Pattcson J. : " The averments in the replica- 

 tion would be satisfied by proof that the dog was wiihin sound of 

 Bunch's whistle, and that Bunch was out of sight." 



A yamelcceper authorised to seize the doys of unquaUfied persons sporting 

 on a manor, by deputation given hefore stat. 1 & 2 Will. IV. c. 32, and 

 not renewed, cannot justify seizing the dogs of uncertificated persons 

 committing such trespass, since the passing of the Act {Lidster v. 

 Barrow). Nor is he entitled to notice of action under sec. 47 of the 

 statute, on the ground that he bond fide supposed himself to be acting 

 in pursuance of the statute {it).). The Court of Queen's Bench con- 

 sidered themselves bound by the case of Bush v. Green, where the Court 

 of Common Pleas held that a gamekeeper acting under a deputation 

 granted and registered previously to the 1st of November, 1831, when 

 the Act 1 & 2 Will. IV. c. 32, came in force, was not entitled to notice 

 of action, or to give all matters in evidence under the generah issue. 

 knUper Abbot C.J., The 2nd section of 22 & 23 Car. II. c. 25 (which 

 was one of the twenty-seven game acts repealed by the above) contains 

 no prohibition against keeping or using hounds, and therefore the 

 gamekeeper of a lord of the manor is not authorized by his deputation 

 to seize them {Grajit v. Hulton). And in Hooher v. Wilkes, it was held 

 that a hound was not within the statute of 5 A^ine, c. 14. 



I'he clutrye of talriny yame without a certificate under 1 & 2 Will. IV. 

 c. 32, 8. 23, is a criminal proceeding for an offence punishable on 

 summary conviction, within 14 & 15 Vict. c. 99, s. 3, and therefore a 

 person so churyed was held by the Court of Queen's Bench as not compietent 



