264: THE SHOOTER'S GUIDE. 



was not then anywise qualified, empowered, liceosed } 

 or authorised, by or according to the laws of this 

 realm, to kill game. It was moved to quash this 

 conviction. And by Lord Mansfield, C. J. It is now 

 settled by the uniform course of authorities, that the 

 qualifications must all be negatively set out : other- 

 wise the justices have no jurisdiction over the persons 

 killing game, or keeping dogs or engines for the de- 

 struction of it. There is a great difference between 

 the purview of an act of parliament, and a proviso in 

 an act of parliament. In the case of R. v. Marriot, 

 where the witness swore only generally, it was holden 

 insufficient : and the justices who convict upon the 

 evidence of the witness, can have no other or further 

 ground to go upon than what the witness swears. 

 In the case of R. v. Hill, it is the very point esta- 

 blished and settled, that the general averment is not 

 sufficient, and that it must be averred, that the de- 

 fendant had not the particular qualifications men- 

 tioned in the statute. In the case of Bluet, qui tarn 

 v. Needs (Com. R. 522), the general averment of the 

 defendant's not being qualified was holden to be suf- 

 ficient upon an action, though insufficient upon a 

 conviction : for in the examination of the question 

 at the trial of an action, the qualification may be gone 

 into. The distinction is obvious between an action 

 and a conviction. In the present case, the witness 

 swears generally that the defendant was not quali- 

 fied. The justices adjudge it generally, only. The 

 stream can go no higher than the spring head. So 



