268 THE SHOOTER'S GUIDE. 



him to be true, was the same as if he had been re- 

 sworn. That as to the other objection, the informa- 

 tion had negatived every separate qualification, and 

 was so stated in the conviction, and there was no 

 occasion to prove it by evidence. If the information 

 be specific, a general deposition that he is not quali- 

 fied is sufficient to put the defendant upon proving 

 that he was. By the court. The first objection is 

 good : the witness ought to have been re-sworn in 

 the defendant's presence. As to the other point, 

 there is no case in which it has been directly de- 

 cided, that the evidence should negative every parti- 

 cular qualification. It cannot be so from the 'nature 

 of the case. Conviction quashed. 1 T. R. 125. 



Hence it would seem, that there is more nicety in 

 convicting an unqualified person than is generally 

 imagined. From the last case, amongst other things, 

 it appears necessary for the witness to swear that the 

 offending party is not qualified ; which, when it is 

 considered, seems rather absurd. Certainly, a man 

 may swear any thing, and of course, may swear that 

 another is not qualified : but to prove this, in most 

 (if not all) cases, is impossible. It appears then ne- 

 cessary for the defendant to prove his own qualifica- 

 tion, unless he choose to appeal to a higher court. 

 In qui tain actions, the defendant must prove his 

 qualification. 



Finally, That I very much dislike the game laws, 

 I have already asserted. They might be very easily 

 altered and moulded into a form less complex, but 



