THE GROUND GAME ACT 195 



a right to the feathered game with a partial right to the 

 ground game, for as ' occupier ' he is bound (under 

 this section of the Act) not to divest himself wholly of 

 his right to kill the hares and rabbits, however willing 

 he may be to do so. All he can do is to refrain from 

 exercising this inalienable right. 



The third section of the Act accordingly provides 

 that any agreement in contravention of the occupier's 

 right to kill ground game would be void ; that is to 

 say, that no such agreement could be enforced in a 

 court of law if either of the parties happened to change 

 his mind and refused to fuliil his contract. In the 

 case of Hicks v. Smith, tried in the Cheltenham County 

 Court in February, 1888, the defendant, an occupier of 

 land in Gloucestershire, let to the plaintiff as shooting 

 tenant an exclusive right to kill game and rabbits, and 

 afterwards proceeded to snare rabbits himself. The 

 plaintiff brought an action for breach of contract, and 

 the defendant pleaded that the agreement was void 

 under Section 3 of the Act. It was held that both 

 parties were in pari delicto, the plaintiff knowing from 

 the first that he was entering into an agreement that 

 would be void under the Statute, and judgment ac- 

 cordingly was entered for the defendant.' A similar 

 view was taken by the judge of the County Court at 



' The Field, February 25, 1888. 



