BONA FIDE ASSERTION OF RIGHT UNDER GAME ACT. 381 



amounted not to a bond fide claim of right or title, so as to oust the ju- 

 risdiction of the justices, but merely to a plea of leave and licence of the 

 occupier of the land, and that such plea was no defence under sec. 30 of 

 1 & 2 Will IV. c. 32. 



Labourer taking rabbit by order of farmer whose lease made no mentmi 

 of rabbits in its game reservation. — A labourer employed upon a farm, 

 the right of sporting over which was reserved to the landlord, was 

 authorized by the tenant to go and kill a rabbit for his wife, who had 

 been confined ; and the justices having found that he killed the rabbit 

 as the servant of the tenant, and by his order, it was held, on the autho- 

 rity 0^ Spicer v. Barnard (28 L. J. (N.S.) M. C. 176), that the labourer 

 was not liable to be proceeded against under 1 & 2 Will. lY. c. 32, s. 30, 

 for a trespass in pursuit of coneys. Hawkins, his master, had succeeded 

 one Christmas as tenant on the terms generally of Christmas's lease, of 

 which there had been no assignment, and had constantly killed rabbits 

 on the land in his occupation. The original lease between Christmas 

 and Padwick contained no mention of rabbits in its reservation of game, 

 and in the agreement between Hawkins and Padwick there was this ex- 

 ception in reference to game — " excepting that the said H. J. Hawkins 

 shall have permission to sport over the said farm and lands " {Padwick, 

 appt. V. King, resp.). 



Bond fide assertion of right under Game /Ic^. — The jurisdiction of the 

 justices to convict summarily under 1 & 2 Will. IV. c. 32, s. 30, for trespass 

 in pursuit of game is ousted when a question of right to be on the land 

 is bond fide raised between the complainant and defendant, according to 

 Reg. V. Cridland (7 E. & B. 853, 27 L. J. (N.S.) M. C. 28) and Morden 

 V. Porter (7 C. B. (N.S.) 641, and 29 L. J. (N.S.) M. C. 22(^).~Legg, 

 appt. V. Pardoe, resp. 



Mere vague belief of right not sufficient to oust jurisdiction of magistrates 

 under Game Act. — A person charged under stat. 1 & 2 Will. IV. c, 32, s. 

 30, with trespassing in pursuit of game in the daytime on land in the 

 occupation of a tenant to A., set up a claim of right to shoot over the 

 land on the ground that he and every one who chose had always shot 

 there till some recent acts of interruption, and declared his readiness to 

 try the right with A. It was held by the Court of Queen's Bench that 

 the mere assertion of such a general right in himself and every one else, 

 though he really believed it, without showing any such claim of right as 

 would be a defence to an action of trespass, did not oust the jurisdiction 

 of the magistrates to convict under the statute in question. 



Ousting justices' jurisdiction. — In a prosecution for a trespass in pur- 

 suit of game under 1 & 2 Will. IV. c. 32, s, 30, the defendant cannot 

 oust the jurisdiction of the justices by disputing the title of the person 



