344 



THE LIABILITIES OF PARTIES HUNTING, ETC. 



his game 

 undisturbed. 



Cattlegate 

 owners have 

 not the right 

 of shooting. 



Eeseryation 

 of rights of 

 lords of the 

 manor under 

 Enclosure 

 Acts. 



Who may till 

 hares -without 

 a game certi- 

 ficate. 



Ground Game 

 Act, 1880. 



right of action against the master of a dog, which is in the 

 habit of disturbing and destroying it, after having received 

 due notice of the fact, and taken no steps to restrain it(g'). 



The customary right of pasture in a manor, or cattle- 

 gates, gives the owners no right to possession of the soil ; 

 but the ownership of it remains in the lord of the manor, 

 subject to the right of several pasture upon it by the cattle- 

 gate owners, and therefore the lord may maintain trespass 

 against a cattlegate owner for sporting over it without his 

 permission (r). 



The reservation of the rights of the lords of the manor 

 under Enclosure Acts reserves the right of shooting ; there- 

 fore in the case of Graham v. Ewart («), in which Sir James 

 Grraham was entitled under a private enclosure Act " to 

 all mines and minerals within and under the soil, and to 

 other rights, royalties, liberties and privileges in and over 

 the same," it was held by the Exchequer Chamber, revers- 

 ing the decision of the Court below, and overruling Great- 

 head V. Morley (t), that the right of hunting, fishing, shoot- 

 ing and fowling over the allotment in question was thereby 

 intended to be included, and that this right must be 

 exclusive, for that was the character of the right existing 

 before the Act passed, and the object of the proviso was 

 expressly to preserve the former right unimpaired by the 

 consequences of the enclosure. It was also held in this 

 case, that a subsequent concurrent enjoyment of sporting 

 for more than twenty years by the owners of the allotments, 

 claiming to do so as of right, did not deprive the original 

 lord of his exclusive right. 



Persons in the occupation of enclosed ground, and in 

 certain cases owners, may kill [u) hares without a game 

 certificate (.r). The owner may also give authority to kiU 

 hares, to be limited to one person at the same time in any 

 one parish. This authority is to be sent to the clerk of 

 the peace for registration, who is also to receive notice of 

 revocation (y). 



And now by the Ground Game Act, 1880 (43 & 44 Vict, 

 c. 47), every occupier of land has a right, inseparable from 

 his occupation, to kill hares and rabbits concurrently with 



(q) Per Keating, J., Head v. 

 Edwards, 11 L. T., N. S. 311. 



(»•) Sigg V. JSarl of Lonsdale, 1 

 H. & N. 923. 



(s) Graham v. Ewart, 26 L. J., 

 Ex. 97. 



it) Greathead v. Morlci/, 3 M. & 

 G. 139. 



(«) Not to authorize the laying of 

 poison, 11 & 12 Vict. c. 29, s. 5. 



(,!■) Ibid. s. 1. 



(y) Ibid. s. 2. 



