THE GAME LAWS. 303 



of the plaintiff, there was a plea of not guilty, and special plea 

 that Cawdor was lord of the manor, and the defendant game- 

 keeper; that the dog was running after, chasing, and hunting 

 divers hares, for the preservation of which the gamekeeper shot 

 and killed the said dog. 



To this plea there was a demurrer : and after argument, Lord 

 Ellenborough, J. C. said, the question is, whether the plaintiff's 

 dog incurred the penalty of death for running after a hare in 

 another's ground ? And if there be any precedent of that sort, 

 which outrages all reason and sense, it is of no authority to 

 govern other cases. There is no question here as to the right 

 of the game. The gamekeeper had no right to kill the plain- 

 tiff's dog for following it. The plea does not even state that 

 the hare was put in peril, so as to induce any necessity for killing 

 the dog in order to preserve the hare. Judgment for the plain- 

 tiff. 11. E. R. 568. 



By 48 Geo. III. c. 93. s. 2. lords of manors are enabled to 

 appoint and depute any person as gamekeeper whatever, whe- 

 ther acting in that capacity to any other person or not, or the 

 servant of any other person, qualified or unqualified, to kill game 

 within a specified manor for his own use, or for the use of any 

 other person or persons to be specified in such appointment or 

 deputation, whether qualified or not; nor need such person to 

 be entered or paid for as the male servant of the lord or lady 

 who gives the deputation. 



Sect. 3. of this act gives the same authority as a regular 

 gamekeeper. 



Thompson v. Christall. The defendant, one of the Earl of 

 Sefton's gamekeeper's, who resides at Kirkby, near Liverpool, 

 having admitted to have had in his possession two game dogs 

 belonging to the plaintiff, which he, the defendant, afterwards 

 destroyed, or otherwise disposed of, the plaintiff brought this 



action in the Court of King's Bench, and the defendant having 

 2c2 



