THE GAME LAWS. 27 I 



degree. The existing statutes relative to this subject, are fun- 

 damentally just and laudable ; though it cannot be denied, that 

 they have been frequently resorted to (on account of game) 

 merely as a colour to the basest intention, and have thus become 

 the instruments of legal oppression. 



An action of trespass may be supported for any unlawful 

 entry on land, although no notice has been given ; but in that 

 case, if the damages recovered be under forty shillings, and only 

 the general issue Ebs been pleaded, the plaintiff will in general 

 recover no more costs than damages ; whereas, when a trespass 

 has been committed after notice, it is usual for the judge on the 

 trial to certify that it was wilful ; in which case the plaintiff will 

 be entitled to full costs, however small the damages. 



It is enacted, by 43 Eliz. and 22 and 23 Car. 2. c. 9. that 

 where the jury, who try an action for trespass, give less damages 

 than 40s. the plaintiff shall be allowed 40s. damages only, un- 

 less (8 and 9 Will, and Mary, c. 11.) it shall appear that the 

 trespass was wilful and malicious, and is so certified to be by the 

 judge ; in which case the plaintiff shall recover full costs. 



However, 4 and 5 Will, and Mary, c. 23. s. 10, enacts, that 

 every inferior tradesman, apprentice, or other dissolute person, 

 may be sued for going upon another man's ground to hunt, &c. 

 though he do no injury ; and if found guilty, shall pay full costs 

 of suit. The reason for which, is to discourage the temptation 

 which might otherwise be afforded them of neglecting their 

 proper business in pursuit of sport, to the injury of themselves 

 and families. 



Who are " Inferior Tradesmen" has not been legally de- 

 fined. Upon the prosecution of a huntsman for being out with 

 his master's hounds, it was decided that the huntsman did not 

 come within the meaning of the statute as an " inferior trades- 

 man" or " dissolute person." In the case Buxton v. Mingat/, 

 the question was, whether the defendant, a surgeon and apothe- 



