DAMAGE BY GAME. 39J 



But it was decided by the Courts of Queen's Bench (where a rule had 

 been moved for by mistake) and Common Pleas, in Wootton v. Dawkins, 

 that an engine intended to give alarm hy loud explosion is not " a spring- 

 gun " within the meaning of that section, and that a trespasser, though 

 in a degree injured thereby, cannot recover for such injury at common 

 law ; nor in the absence of evidence that it was caused by a spring-gun 

 or other engine " calculated to inflict grievous bodily harm," under the 

 statute. Here the plaintiif, having obtained permission during the 

 daylight to go into the defendant's garden to look for a lost bantam, 

 climbed over the wall into it by a ladder, without permission, at night ; 

 and whilst groping among the bushes, came in contact with a wire, 

 which caused something, the nature of which was not in evidence, to 

 explode with a loud noise, knocking him down and slightly injuring his 

 face and eyes. 



In Read v. Edwards, 34 L. J. (N. S.) C. P. 31, the plaintiff brought 

 an action against the defendant for damages sustained by him in respect 

 of a dog which was in the habit of hunting game in plaintiff's woods, 

 and thereby causing damage to the plaintiff, and the Court held that 

 such action was maintainable. 



In the case of Barlcer v. Davis, the appellant shot game on land 

 which he occupied as tenant. Before the commencement of the tenancy, 

 the landlord had granted the right of shooting to a Mr. Garnett, by 

 deed. The tenant, the appellant in the case, was summoned and con- 

 victed before justices, on the evidence of Mr. Garnett, that he had the 

 exclusive right of shooting on the land in question, that he preserved 

 the game, and had given no permission to the tenant to shoot. It was 

 held that upon this evidence the justices ought not to have convicted, 

 as there was not sufficient evidence that the right of shooting was in 

 Garnett, without the production of the deed (34 L. J. (N. S.) M. C. 141). 

 In the case of Dawson v. Fitzgerald, 9 L. R. Ex. 7, the defendant hired 

 of the plaintiff the right of shooting over certain lands upon the terms, 

 amongst others, that the defendant during his tenancy would only keep 

 such a number of hares and rabbits as would do no injury to the woods 

 or plantations on the estate, or the growing crops of the tenants, and if 

 such damage or injury did result to the crops of the tenants or the trees 

 of the plaintiff, then the defendant should pay the plaintiff or the 

 tenants a fair and reasonable compensation for such injury. It appeared 

 that injury was done to the trees and crops ; and to an action brought 

 for compensation for such injury, the defendant pleaded that " one of 

 the terms of the tenancy was, that in case of any such injury, the 

 defendant would pay a fair and reasonable compensation, the amount of 

 such compensation, in case of difference, to be referred to two arbitra- 



