370 FEIGHTENING GEOUSE. 



In the cases of Vetjsey v. Hoslcins and Harris v. Hoslins, 34 L. J. 

 (N. C.) M. C. 145, the appellants were found with a net for the purpose 

 of taking game on land which had a hedge on either side and a metalled 

 road through it, but the land on each side of the road was waste, and 

 varying in extent ; it was held that this land was neither open nor 

 inclosed within the meaning of the 9 Geo. IV. c. 69, s. 1. 



In the case of Sfacei/ v. Whitehurst, 34 L. J. (N. S.) M. C. 94, White- 

 hurst and another person were driving along a turnpike road when the 

 other person got out of the conveyance, entered a field, shot a hare, and 

 handed it to Whitehurst, who then drove away, it was held that White- 

 hurst could be found guilty of aiding and abetting to commit the oflfence 

 of trespass in pursuit of game. 



In Kvnijon v. H((rt, 34 L. J. (N. S.) M. C. 87, the respondent was 

 shooting on his own laud when a pheasant rose and flew over the land 

 of anotlier person ; the respondent fired at and killed the bird, which 

 fell upon the other person's land. The respondent went with his dog, 

 and picked up the pheasant and took it away. He was afterwards 

 summoned for " trespassing in search of game," but the justices dis- 

 missed the case, and the Court held that they were right. 



In Iblotson v. Peat, to a declaration alleging that the defendant, with 

 intent to frighten away grouse from plaintiff's land, fired and exploded 

 rockets and fireworks, so as to be a nuisance, the defendant pleaded 

 that he committed the acts complained of in order to prevent the plaintiff 

 from shooting grouse which had been enticed by the plaintiff from de- 

 fendant's land, and from enticing other grouse from defendant's land, 

 it was held that the plea was no answer to the action, and judgment 

 was given for the plaintiif" (34 L. J., (JST. S.) Exch. 118). 



In the case of Hall v. Knox, a constable saw a person with a gun in 

 his hand, on a public footway, in tlie act of picking up a rabbit which 

 was thrown over the hedge by another person ; it was held that to sustain 

 a conviction under the Prevention of Poaching Act, 25 & 26 Vict. c. 114, 

 s. 2, an actual search was not necessary {Hall v. Knox, 33 L. J. (N. S.) 

 M. C. 1), and in Evans v. Bolter ill and Others, 33 L. J. (N. S.) M. C. 50, 

 where the defendants were found on the highway at 6 a.m., with a bag 

 containing a hare and rabbits, and with nets and stakes, it was held 

 that they could be convicted of having obtained the game by having 

 been unlawfully on land in pursuit of game, without direct proof that 

 any of the defendants had been upon any land, or had used any of the 

 nets. 



It is not sufficient to oust the jurisdiction of justices in regard to a 

 charge of trespass in pursuit of game, under 1 & 2 Will. IV. c. 32, s. 30, 

 that there is an honest claim of right, if such claim is absurd and im- 



