178 THE RABBIT 



Sometimes a shooting tenant is induced to consent 

 to a clause in the lease to indemnify his landlord against 

 claims by tenants for damage done by ground game — 

 a proviso which should be refused unless he is very 

 anxious to secure the shooting, and the landlord will not 

 let it otherwise, regarding such clause as tantamount 

 to a guarantee that the ground game will be well kept 

 down. This happened in the case of Rashleigh and 

 another v. Veale, which came before his Honour Judge 

 Grainger in the St. Austell County Court in January, 

 1895, the result being that the defendant (who was 

 the sporting tenant), as was to be expected, was held 

 liable on his covenant. 



Another grievance on the part of an ' occupier ' 

 who holds land over which someone else has a grant 

 of ' free warren,' is that he cannot kill any rabbits 

 at all, notwithstanding his supposed rights under the 

 Ground Game Act. Witness the case of Lord 

 Carnarvon v. Clarkson, to which allusion has been 

 already made.' 



There is still another class of persons who profess 

 themselves aggrieved by the operation of the Ground 

 Game Act — namely, the agricultural labourers. The 



' See pp. 55, S^j ^"d a frccis of the case in The Field oi 

 May 18, 1895, under the heading ' Occupiers who have no 

 Right to Ground Game. ' 



