POACHING 163 



entered the adjacent field. This was decided by the 

 Court of Queen's Bench in the case of Regina v. 

 Pratt, 24 L, J. (N.S.) 113. If the facts warrant it, 

 he may also be prosecuted for shooting game without 

 a licence. 



It is a question for the justices to determine 

 whether a defendant is ' in pursuit of game ' or not. 

 In a case tried at Cheltenham in January, 1892, in 

 which two persons were summoned for trespass in 

 pursuit of game, it was contended on their behalf 

 that, although they had a dog and gun, there was no 

 evidence of their being 'in pursuit of game.' The 

 magistrates, however, considered that their intention 

 was sufficiently evident, and fined them ten shillings 

 each and costs. 



If the owner of a hedge which he proposes to 

 ferret, steps over into his neighbour's field for the 

 purpose of shooting any rabbits that may be put out 

 to him, he is clearly a trespasser, for it is only by 

 permission that a person can stand on his neighbour's 

 land for the purpose of killing game started on his 

 own property. 



Should it happen that a person convicted of 

 trespassing in pursuit of game, or rabbits, under 

 Section 30 of the Act i & 2 Will. IV. cap. 32, is the 

 holder of a gun or game licence, that licence will 



M 2 



