RIGHT TO SHOOT IN PRIVATE LANDS. 569 



-of this right is of an incorporeal hereditament and should be 

 by deed : ^® it is a grant of an interest in land and within the 

 Statute of Frauds.®" The grant to a person, his heirs and 

 assigns of "free liberty with servants or otherwise to come 

 into and upon lands and there to hawk, hunt, fish and fowl," 

 was held to be the grant of a license of profit and not of a 

 mere personal license of pleasure, and, therefore, it authorized 

 the grantee, his heirs and assigns to hawk, etc., by his serv- 

 ants in his absence. Such a liberty is a proUt a prendre.^^ 

 Where one has the sole and exclusive right to shoot on 

 -another's land, this does not authorize the former to permit 

 others to exercise the same privilege.®^ 



A reservation in a case of the liberty of hawking, hunting, 

 fishing and fowling, is not legally a reservation or exception, 

 but a privilege granted to the lessor.®^ A right of shooting 

 game over allotments declared by an Enclosure Act to be 

 the freehold of the allottees can be reserved to the lord only 

 in express terms or by necessary implication.®* A stipulation 

 ol a tenant that he will not destroy any game and will en- 

 •deavor to preserve all game bred and being on the farm was 

 held not to be a reservation of game to the landlord and the 

 tenant could not be convicted of unlawfully killing game.®^ 



A landlord who has verbally reserved game to himself has 

 ..sufficient authority to give leave to another to kill game 



=' Bird V. Higginson, 2 A. & E. 696. And see Thomas v. Fredericks, 10 

 Q. B. 775, where the grant was held valid as an agreement, even where 

 it did not pass the estate. 



" Webber v. Lee, 9 Q- B. D. 3iS- 



" Wickham v. Hawker, 7 M. & W. 63. S. P. Ewart v. Graham, 7 H. L. 

 Cas. 331; Hudson v. Foott, g Ir. C. L. R. 203. 



" Bingham v. Salene, 15 Oreg. 208. See Marquis of Huntly v. Nichol, 

 23 Rettie (Sc. Ct. Sess.) 610; Reynolds v. Moore, [1898] 2 I. R. 641. 



"^Doe dem. Douglas v. Lock, 2 A. & E. 70S; Reynolds v. Moore, 

 supra. 



" Duke of Devonshire v. O'Connor, 24 Q. B. D. 468, followmg Sowerby 

 V. Smith, L. R. 9 C. P. 524, and commenting on Leconfield, Lord, v. 

 Dixon, L. R. 3 Ex. 30. 



"= Coleman v. Bathurst, L. R. 6 Q. B. 366. 



