392 PURSUIT OF GAME. 



tors or an umpire ; that a difference arose, and that no arbitrators or 

 umpire were appointed, and no award made." Held, on demurrer, that 

 this was a good plea. 



To sustain an indictment under the 9 Gpo. IV. c. 69, s. 4, it must be 

 proved that proceedings were commenced within twelve months from 

 the time of the offence, and the warrant under which the prisoners 

 are apprehended is not sufficient evidence : the information also must 

 be proved (7?^y/. v. Parlm; 33 L. J. (N. S.) M. C. 135). 



In the case of Jeffnjes v. Evans, 34 L. J. (N. S.) C.P. 261, the plaintiff 

 hired of the defendant the exclusive right of " shooting and sporting 

 over and taking the game, rabbits, and wild fowl upon " a farm of 

 which one Rees was tenant, the defendant having in his lease to Rees 

 reserved this exclusive right to himself. Rees shot a quantity of rabbits 

 and grubbed up a large extent of gorse, and the plaintiff brought an 

 action against the defendant in consequence of these acts of Rees. It 

 was held that Rees had no right to shoot the rabbits, and that his act was 

 a wrongful one, for which defendant was not liable, but that Rees had 

 a right to grub up the gorse in the reasonable course of husbandry, and 

 that there was no implied covenant with the plaintiff that this should 

 not be done, and that defendant was therefore not liable for such act of 

 Rees. 



A person who has a right of shooting over land the property of ano- 

 ther by an agreement not under seal has not such an interest as to 

 entitle him to compensation from a railway company under the Lands 

 Clauses Consolidation Act, 8 & 9 Vict c. 18, s. 68, in respect of the 

 shooting being diminished in value by the company taking a portion 

 of such land for the purposes of constructing a railway {Bird v. Great 

 {Eastern Railway (34 L. J. (N. S.) C. P. 366). 



Pursuit of game under 25 & 26 Vict, c. 1 14, s. 2. Under the 2nd section 

 of the new Game Act, empowering constables to stop and search persons 

 suspected of poaching, and on finding game, or instruments for taking 

 game upon them, to summon them before justices, the justices may con- 

 vict without direct proof that the persons charged have gone upon any 

 land in pursuit of game, circumstantial evidence that they must have 

 done so being sufficient {Broivn & Others v. Turner). 



In order to justify a conviction under 25 & 26 Vict. c. 114, s. 2, it is 

 necessary that game or instruments for taking game should be found on 

 the accused on a highway ; it is not sufficient that the accused should 

 be seen on a highway and game found on him elsewhere {Clarke v. 

 Crowder, 4 L. R. C. P. 638 ; see also Turner v. Morgan, 10 L. R. 

 C. P. 587). 



In Jenkins & Dennis v. Kinrj, 7 L. R. Q. B. 478, the appellants were 



