274 THE GAME LAWS. 



. 



It is supposed by some, that a person may continue to spo: 

 on the same manor all day, though he has been warned off in 

 the morning. This cannot be the case he may go through the 

 manor to some road, but should he persevere in continuing his 

 diversion for any unnecessary length of time, he becomes a 

 wilful trespasser. 



At the summer Hertford assizes, 1809, the Earl of Essex, v. 

 the Hon. and Rev. Wm. Capel. The plaintiff declared in tres- 

 pass, for breaking and entering certain closes of the plaintiff, 

 and that with hounds, dogs, and horses, he hunted, sported, and 

 went in, along, and over, the said closes, and trod down and de- 

 stroyed, the grass and herbage of the plaintiff. The defendant 

 pleaded several pleas. 1st. the general issue, which he after- 

 wards withdrew. 2d. that as to breaking and entering the close, 

 called Cashiobury Park, the defendant, with divers other persons, 

 who, as well as the defendant, were qualified to keep hounds, 

 had found a fox in a certain place, called Bricket Wood, not being 

 the close of the plaintiff, and that a fox being a noxious animal, 

 he hunted it with his dogs, hounds, and horses, and that the 

 hunting the fox with dogs, hounds, and horses, was the only 

 way of killing the fox. In the 3d plea, it was stated, that such 

 pursuit of the fox, with dogs, hounds, and horses, was the most 

 effectual and proper way of killing the fox. To these pleas the 

 plaintiff replied, that hunting the fox, was not the only, or the 

 most effectual way of killing and destroying it ; and further 

 stated, that the trespasses were committed, for the sport and 

 diversion of the chase, and for the purpose of amusement and 

 pleasure only. To these replications, the defendant rejoined, 

 that the trespasses were not committed for diversion and amuse- 

 ment, but as the only and most effectual and proper way of kil- 

 ling and destroying the fox. Shepherd, Serjeant, for the plain- 

 tiff, contended, that the only question was, whether it was the 

 defendant's object, to rid the country of noxious vermin, or whe* 



