THE GAME LAWS. 233 



hunt, hawk, fish, or fowl, (unless in company with the master 

 of such apprentice duly qualified) such persons may be sued for 

 wilful trespass, on coming on any person's ground, and if found 

 guilty shall pay full costs. 



At Winchester assizes, three years ago, a cause was tried 

 under the game laws, in which Mr. Ward, a gentleman of con- 

 siderable property in the Isle of Wigiit, and lord of the manor 

 of Northwood, was plaintiff, and Mr. Hart, a gentleman residing 

 at Cowes, defendant. The question was, whether the defend- 

 ant, who was possessed of landed property above 100/. per 

 annum, but not assessed under the property tax acts to that 

 amount, was qualified to kill game. The judge, Mr. Baron 

 Graham, summed up the evidence in the most impartial manner, 

 and the jury found their verdict for the defendant. 



Hooker v. Wilks. This was an action of debt, on 8 Geo. I. 

 c. ] 9. for the penalty of i30, for using a hound to destroy the 

 game ; and, after a verdict for the plaintiff, the judgment was 

 arrested; for 5 Ann. c. 14. has not the word hound, and the 

 words other engines, come after nets, &c. and are applicable 

 only to inanimate things. And this being a penal law, cannot 

 be extended. The statute 22 and 23 Car. II. c. 25. has indeed 

 the.general words, or any other dogs to destroy game ; but this 

 is not a conviction on that statute*. 2 Stra. 1126. 



King v Filer. Conviction on 5 Ann. for keeping a lurcher 



* But, although this statute has those general words, it is impossible 

 to convict any offender under it in any penalty, because none is thereby 

 given. The act does not declare that no person shall keep or use any 

 greyhound, &c. or any other dogs to destroy game; but. the general 

 words are found in the enacting clause, which gives authority to lords of 

 manors to appoint gamekeepers to search the house of any person sus- 

 pected to have any greyhounds, setting-dogs, ferrets, coney-dogs, or 

 other dogs lo destroy hares or conies. No penalty can therefore be re- 

 covered under 5 Ann. against those who keep any dog not mentioned in 

 that statute. 



