THE GAME LAWS. 



shall go to the informer, and no part to the poor of the parish. 



In an information on the game laws, charging the defendant 

 with keeping and using a dog, and also a gun on the same day, 

 he can only be convicted in one penalty. Rex v* Lovett. 7 

 Term Rep. 152. 



It is no objection to an information on the game laws, that 

 it is not qui tarn. Ibid. 



If the evidence be given on the same day that the defendant 

 appeared and pleaded, it will be intended that the evidence was 

 given in his presence. Ibid. 



The statute 4- and 5 W. and M. c. 23. makes an inferior 

 tradesman liable to full costs in an action for hunting on another's 

 ground, notwithstanding his being qualified by an estate. Ben- 

 nett v. Talbois. 1 Lord Raym. 150. 



In the case Gardner v. Hanson, Home Circuit, July 29, 

 1803, it appeared that the plaintiff was a farmer, residing at 

 Great Bromley; and the defendant was his neighbour, and lord 

 of the manor. The action was brought to recover the value of 

 two greyhounds, which the defendant had seized and converted 

 to his own use. To this declaration the defendant had pleaded 

 specially that he seized the dogs and detained them only until 

 the plaintiff should prove himself qualified by law to use them. 

 The proof first given by the plaintiff was of the taking of the 

 two dogs by the defendant's gamekeeper. To justify this the 

 warrant was produced, by virtue of which they were taken. 

 This warrant was signed by two justices, and granted on the 

 oath of Killibach, the defendant's gamekeeper, who swore that 

 the plaintiff kept two greyhounds, and that he was not qualified 

 by law to use them. The justices therefore ordered them to be 

 seized. This warrant the justices granted without any summons 

 to the party, or giving him any opportunity of proving his qua* 

 lification. The plaintiff now proved that he was in possession 

 of 150 acres of land, of the value of one guinea an acre, besides 



