2o6 THE RABBIT 



(i.e. before the passing of the Act), because under the 

 terms of their leases they were prohibited from kiUing 

 game in any way whatever. But during the progress 

 of the Bill it was represented tohim that other persons 

 were allowed to set spring traps, and in this way they 

 could kill a great many things besides rabbits. It 

 seemed to him that spring traps were cruel things, and 

 he intended to limit the use of spring traps not against 

 tenants only, but against everybody. Nobody was 

 allowed, whether proprietor or tenant, to set a spring 

 trap in the open, and for this reason, that it killed a 

 great many animals that it was not desired to kill.' 



Thus it is clear that the construction placed upon 

 the sixth section of the Act by the Justices of Appeal 

 in Smith v. Hunt is not in accordance with the ex- 

 pressed intention of the Government as stated by Sir 

 William Harcourt. 



Nevertheless their decision has been followed in 

 the case of McMahon v. Hannon, which came before 

 the Exchequer Division, Dublin, on May 15, 1888, by 

 way of appeal on a case stated by the Justices of the 

 Co. Clare, sitting at Dunass. The Lord Chief Baron 

 and Mr. Justice Andrews were of opinion that the 

 sixth section of the Act did not apply to owners of 

 land in fee simple in possession, but only to occupiers 



