LAYING TRAPS FOR DOGS. 389 



having been clearly proved in the present instance, the rule for a new 

 trial must be discharged. 



The ])rincij)Je of compensation for damage hy game was upheld in 

 Barrow v. Ashhurnham, where evidence was given of a conversation 

 between the plaintiff who subsequently became the tenant, and the 

 steward of the defendant, in which the former said, " I have no objection 

 to take the farm, if the game is destroyed ; I don't care so much about 

 the birds, as the hares and rabbits." To this the steward replied : 

 "Why, you are a man who keep no dog. and use no gun, and you ought 

 not to be annoyed with hares and rabbits ; you must let the keepers 

 know, and they must kill them." The plaintiff rejoined, " Then upon 

 these terms I will take the farm." This conversation was held by the 

 Court of Queen's Bench to infer a contract on the ])art of the landlord 

 to kill the hares and rabbits ; and that the landlord was liable to 

 damages (in this case £150) committed by the hares and rabbits on the 

 tenant's farm. 



A bequest of money (£5,000) to le applied in purchasing the disclmrge, 

 of persons, who, at the time of the testator's decease, or within five years 

 afterwards, should be committed to jn-ison for non-payment of fines, fees, 

 and expenses under the game laws, was held by Sir J. RomiUg M.C. to be 

 invalid, as contrary to public policy (Thrupp v. Collett). 



The subject of laying traps for dogs was first considered in Toumsend 

 V. Wathen. Here the defendant owned a large wood within 150 yards 

 of the plaintiff's house, which was intersected with public highways 

 and paths. In the blind tracks, traps large enough to catch sheep or 

 deer were laid and baited with fresh or stinking flesh. But no notice 

 was given of the traps being set. Besides this, paunches rubbed with 

 aniseed had been dragged by the gamekeeper at a circle round the 

 traps, to di'aw animals to them, for which defendant recompensed the 

 keeper, at the rate of 2s. 6d. for every fox and badger, and Is. for every 

 dog. Some of these traps were set so near the plaintiff's house that the 

 baiting and aniseed might be scented by the dogs there. It was held 

 by the Court of Queen's Bench that an action on the case lay. 



In Deane v. Clayton, where the plaintiff' had a verdict for £15, subject 

 to a point which Dallas J. reserved, on the authority of Toivnsend v. 

 Wathen, the Court of Queen's Bench was divided in opinion as to 

 whether, if plaintiff's dog started off the unfe need puMic footpath through 

 defendant's tvood, and ran against spikes placed in the hare-paths {of 

 which due notice ivas given), the plaintiff was entitled to compensation 

 for his £50 pointer if he chased a hare and was killed. ParTc and 

 Burrough JJ. held that he was, and Gibbs C.J. and Dallas J. that he 

 was not. The Court of Exchequer adopted the ruling of the latter two 



