38:2 OUSTING JUSTICES' JUEISDICTIOX. 



"who is alleged in tbo information to be in occupation of the land 

 in question. In order to do that, he must make a hond fide claim of 

 title on behalf of himself or of those under whom he claims. The 

 justices are to consider ^-liether the occupation is proved as alleged in 

 the information. It -svas held by CocMmni C.J., BlacJchurn J., and 

 Mellor J., that if there ^as any evidence before the justices proving 

 the occupation as laid, they would be justified in deciding that the in- 

 formation was proved ; and that a superior court ought not, upon a 

 case granted by them under 20 & 21 Vic. c. 43, to interfere with 

 their decision. It was shown on the evidence on behalf of the lord 

 and in support of the prosecution that the appellant was beating for 

 game with a dog and a gun on the day in question in a part of the 

 pai'ish of Slow cum Quy called Quy Fen, and that he asked a witness 

 not to say anything about it, and that Quy Fen was within the manor 

 of Slow cum Quy, the bounds of which were coterminous with the 

 parish. The appellant gave evidence to prove that he had been in the 

 habit of shooting over Quy Fen for forty years, and that the inhabitant 

 householders had paid a tax raised for the draining of Quy Fen. 



Young pheasants still under protection of hen in coop hy day are not 

 game. — It was held by PollocTc C.B. and Williams J. that a prisoner can- 

 not be convicted under 9 Geo. IV. c. 69, s. 9, for entering land by night, 

 armed for the purpose of taking game, when his object is to steal young 

 pheasants which had been hatched by a hen, and had not yet become 

 wild. Although they roosted on trees near the coops, they were still 

 under the care and protection of the hen, and therefore were Dr. Ver- 

 non's property, and not game, which is not the subject of property, 

 and the prisoner was convicted of a common assault {Reg. v. Garnham). 

 Tame deer in parTc personal property. — Tame deer in a park are per- 

 sonal property, and the Court will not interfere to restrain waste in not 

 keeping up the herd {Ford v. Tynte, in which case Morgan v. Lord 

 Abergavenny, 8 C. B. 768, was cited). 



Loi'd of Manor's exclusive right to sport over allotments. — Ewart v. 

 Graham (Bart.) was confirmed with costs in the House of Lords (29 

 L. J. (N. S.) Ex. 88). It was a proceeding by way of writ of error, 

 brought for the purpose of reversing a decision of the Court of Ex- 

 chequer Chamber, partly affirming and partly reversing a judgment of 

 the Court of Exchequer, pronounced on a special case stated for the 

 opinion of that Court. Lord Wenslcydale adhered to his Exchequer 

 decision, that there was a reservation of the de facto right : he only 

 doubted whether this case could be distinguished from Greethead v. 

 Morley (3 M. & G. 139, and 10 L. J. (N. S.) C. P. 246); but if it 

 could not, he was prepared to say that case was wrongly decided. 



