372 FORCIBLE RESCUE ILLEGAL. 



ferreting rabbits. TTis dog had slightly damaged the hedge in two or 

 three places, by breaking through it. The defendant ran away, and 

 was caught after a struggle, and would not tell his name. It was 

 submitted that the charge could not be sustained for more than a 

 mere assault, as the apprehension and detainer of the prisoner were 

 both unlawful, for that by stat. 1 & 2 Will. TV. c. 32, s. 31, before 

 apprehending the prisoner, the prosecutor was bound to ask his Chris- 

 tian name, surname, and place of abode, and also to require him to 

 quit the land. PavTce, B. held that damage done fn a fence hj a jwacJiefs 

 dog in jjursuif of game is not a " malicious '' injury within the meaning 

 of stat. 7 & 8 Geo. IV. c. 30, s. 23 ; and 'that to justify the appre- 

 hension of an offender under 1 efe 2 Will IV. c. 32, s. 31, it is only 

 necessary that he should have been made to understand by the person 

 authorised under that section, that he is requio'ed to tell his Christian 

 name, surname, and place of abode, and that he should have refused to 

 co77i])ly with such requisition, and that it is not necessary that he should 

 have been required both to quit the land and also to tell his name. 

 The prisoner was found guilty upon the first count, which alleged an 

 intent to prevent his lawful apprehension and detainer. 



The forcihle rescue of a person from unlauful custody is illegal. And 

 so it was held in Beg. v. Almey and Spencer, where the prisoners were 

 charged with feloniously assaulting and wounding one James Rayson, 

 a gamekeeper, who saw them with one Kenney and four others beat- 

 ing for game. Kenney had a gun, and on being asked his name refused 

 to give it, and was taken into custody, and the gamekeeper was 

 wounded by the prisoners in their attempt to rescue him. It was 

 contended for the prisoners that the apprehension was unlawful, inas- 

 much as before the apprehension Kenney had only refused to give his 

 name, and had not refused to go off* the land, and that the prisoners 

 were therefore justified in using violence to effect his rescue. But 

 Erie J. (after consulting Cresswell J.) considered that Kenney himself 

 might perhaps have lawfully resisted his apprehension, but that the 

 prisoners had no right to take part in that resistance, and overruled 

 the objection. 



A conviction of sevei'al p)ersons for tresjMssing in pursuit of game in 

 the daytime, under 1 & 2 Will. IV., c. 32, s, 30, was drawn up, includ- 

 ing them all in one conviction, and adjudicating " each of them ; " 

 the said C, B, W, and S, so making default, to be imprisoned for one 

 month, unless the said several sums and the costs and charges of con- 

 veying each of them the said C, B, W, and S, so making default to the 

 said gaol, shall be sooner paid." It was held by the Court of Queen's 

 Bench that the conviction was bad, as it made each defendant liable 



