THE GAME LAWS. 



either of these he is not legally authorised to demand 

 the name or certificate of any other person. 



If, however, a gamekeeper be qualified in his own 

 right, he has no occasion to enter his deputation. 

 But a keeper is not authorised, by any statute, to 

 seize game which he may find in the possession of 

 poachers even on his own manor, though it is lawful 

 for him to take their dogs, nets, or other implements. 

 Also, gamekeepers, if found killing game off the 

 manors for which they were appointed, are liable to 

 the same penalties as unqualified persons. The only 

 difference, in this case, between them is, that a 

 gamekeeper's gun and dogs are not seizable ; while 

 those of an unqualified person may be taken. 



M. 9. G. 3. Rogers v. Carter. The plaintiff, 

 Rogers, brought an action against the defendant, 

 being a justice of the peace, for taking the plaintiff's 

 gun. After a verdict for the plaintiff, a new trial 

 was moved for. The case was, the plaintiff, being a 

 gamekeeper within the manor of Ringwood, in beat- 

 ing for game within the said manor, sprung a covey 

 of partridges, which he shot at within the said manor. 

 They took a second flight, and he pursued them out 

 of the manor, hut could not find them. As he was 

 returning, he was met by the defendant about three 

 quarters of a mile distant from the manor of Ring- 

 wood, who asked him if he had a qualification. The 

 plaintiff answered, I have a deputation from the lord 

 of the manor of Ringwood. The defendant replied, 

 You are now out of that manor, and demanded his 



B5 



