SPORTING EIGHTS OF LORD OF MANOR. 383 



Hence the lord still possesses the exclusive right of hunting, shooting, 

 &c., over the allotments. 



Lord of Manor not entitled to shoot over allotments of Common. — In 

 Bruce v. HellhveU, an Inclosure Act, after directing one-sixteenth of 

 the common land to be allotted to the Lord of the Manor as a com- 

 pensation for his right to the soil, and the residue (with certain ex- 

 ceptions) among the commoners, contained a proviso that nothing in 

 the act should defeat, lessen, or prejudice the right, title, or interest of 

 the lord to the mines and minerals in or under the said commons, or 

 to any seignories or royalties incident and belonging to the manor, 

 the same being thereby reserved to the lord, with full power for him 

 at all times to hold and enjoy all rents, fines, duties, customs, and ser- 

 vices, and all courts and perquisites, and liberty of hunting, coursing, 

 fishing, and fowling within and throughout the said manor ; and all 

 goods and chattels of felons, treasure trove, waifs, estrays, forfeitures, 

 royalties, jurisdictions, purchases, and privileges whatsoever to the said 

 manor incident or appertaining (other than and except such right as 

 could or might be claimed by him as owner of the soil and inheritance 

 of the said commons) in as full ample and beneficial manner to all in- 

 tents and purposes as if the said act had not been passed. As owner 

 of the soil of the commons, the lord had before the act the free and 

 exclusive right and liberty of sporting and killing game thereon, but 

 there was no right of free share or free warren within the manor. It 

 was held that the lord retained no right to shoot over the allotments. 

 And per Bramivell B. : " Eioart v. Graham is distinguishable from this 

 case, inasmuch as the words in it were that the lord was to have the 

 right of shooting, fowling, coursing, and so forth over the allotted 

 lands. It might be that that right had been conferred upon him under 

 some mistake as to its previous existence ; but whether it was conferred 

 upon him owing to that mistake or not, the answer is that it was con- 

 ferred upon him. It might have been conferred upon him under a 

 mistake, namely, under the misapprehension which my brother Martin 

 referred to as to the rights of lords of manors. Whatever be the origin 

 of it, there it was." 



In Reg. v. Inhabitants of Thurlstone, a tenant occupied land under 

 an agreement with his landlord, that he was to have no right to the 

 game upon it. He was assessed to the poor-rate on the land valued with 

 the game, and on appeal before the West Riding Magistrates it was 

 agreed that the proper assessment should be, if for the land only, without 

 a right to the game, £11 os. 8d. ; and if with the game, £26 19s. 8d. ; 

 and the Court of Queen's Bench held that he ought to be assessed only 

 for the lower amount. 



