THE GROUND GAME ACT 207 



not in fee simple. From this view Baron Dowse 

 dissented. ' 



The decision in these two cases, which had 

 reference to spring traps only, will of course apply 

 equally to the use of poison, and to shooting at night, 

 as all are included in the same section. It would 

 follow, also, that a sporting tenant who rents the 

 shooting from an owner in occupation, will, in regard 

 to Section 6 of the Act, be in the position of the owner. 



Under Section 7, a person (e.g. an ordinary shoot- 

 ing tenant) who is not in occupation of the land, but 

 hasthe sole right of killing the game thereon — subject 

 to the concurrent right of the ' occupier ' to the ground 

 game — has as much authority to institute legal pro- 

 ceedings as if he were exclusive owner, without pre- 

 judice of course to the right of the occupier. 



The eighth section of the Act defines the words 

 ' ground game ' to mean ' Hares and Rabbits.' 



The ninth section provides that a person acting in 



conformity with this statute shall not thereby be 



■ Reported in The Field oiMa.y 26, 1888. See also the case 

 of Saunders v. Pitfield, which came before the Divisional Court 

 by way of appeal from the magistrates at Bishop's Lydeard, 

 Somerset. ' In this case the defendant claimed, as tenant from 

 year to year under an agreement, made prior to the Act, in which 

 there was no reservation of shooting rights to the lessor, and the 

 magistrates decided that the Act did not apply. The Court of 

 Appeal decided otherwise. See The Field, January 28, 1888. 



