134 
Contemporary  Agricultural  Law. 
Game  Act,  1380,  which  forbids  a person  having  the  right  of 
killing  ground  game  under  the  Act,  for  the  purpose  of  killing 
ground  game  to  employ  spring  traps  except  in  rabbit  holes,  does 
not  apply  to  the  grantee  of  sporting  rights  over  land  when  he 
is  not  the  occupier  of  the  land  over  which  those  rights  are 
granted.  On  the  other  hand  in  Waters  v.  Phillips  (1910,  2 
K. B.,  4(55  ; 79  L.J.K.B.,  1062)  it  was  held  that  the  section  does 
apply  to  the  occupier  of  land  who  has  the  right  a^art  from 
the  Ground  Game  Act,  1880,  of  killing  and  taking  game  on  the 
land  by  reason  of  the  fact  that  the  owner  has  not  by  the 
tenancy  agreement  reserved  the  sporting  rights.  The  reason  of 
the  different  decisions  appears  to  be  that  the  occupier  is 
expressly  made  subject  to  Section  6 by  Section  1 of  the  Act. 
5.  Produce.  Draper  v.  Newnham  (102  L.T.,  280 ; 8, 
L. G.R.,  144)  was  a case  where  a retail  milk  dealer  was 
summoned  for  selling  milk  not  of  the  substance  and  quality 
demanded.  He  relied  on  a warranty  under  the  Sale  of  Food 
and  Drugs  Act,  1875,  and  proved  that  he  had  purchased  the 
milk  from  a farmer  who  for  some  years  had  supplied  all  the 
milk  be  required  under  a verbal  contract,  and  that  in  Septem- 
ber, 1908,  the  farmer  had  written,  “ I hereby  guarantee  and 
warrant  that  all  milk  supplied  by  me  to  you  is  of  the  nature, 
quality,  and  substance  demanded  by  law,  and  I give  this 
warranty  for  tbe  purpose  of  the  Sale  of  Food  and  Drugs  Act, 
1899.”  It  was  held  that  this  warranty  could  be  read  as  mean- 
ing that  it  should  apply  to  all  future  deliveries  of  milk, and  that 
the  respondent  was  protected  thereby  under  Section  25  of  the 
Sale  of  Food  and  Drugs  Act,  1875. 
Wallis  v.  Pratt  (1910,  2 K.B.,  1003  ; 79  L.J.K.B.,  1013), 
was  a case  of  the  sale  of  sainfoin  seed  which  turned  out  to  be 
giant  sainfoin  and  not  English  sainfoin.  It  was  sold  by  sample 
by  the  appellants  to  tbe  respondents,  and  was  said  to  have  been 
grown  by  Walker  of  Tanfield,  near  Alvescot.  The  sold  note  was 
as  follows  : “ Sold  to  Messrs.  Wallis,  Son  and  Wells,  Reading, 
on  the  conditions  printed  on  the  back,  abt.  27^  quarters  sainfoin 
40s.  x Walker  (common  English)  x Alvescot  . . . .”  On  the 
back  was  the  following  condition  : “ Sellers  give  no  warranty, 
express  or  implied,  as  to  growth,  description,  or  any  other 
matters,  and  they  shall  not  be  held  to  guarantee  or  warrant  the 
fitness  for  any  particular  purpose  of  any  grain,  seed,  flour,  cake, 
or  any  other  article  sold  by  them,  or  its  freedom  from  injurious 
quality,  or  from  latent  defect.”  The  seed  was  duly  delivered 
and  was  equal  to  sample.  The  respondents  re-sold  a portion  of 
the  seed  as  common  English  sainfoin  seed  in  different  parcels 
to  several  purchasers  including  one  J.  R.  Nichol.  After  the 
seed  came  up  he  discovered  it  was  not  common  English  sain- 
foin but  giant  sainfoin,  which  was  inferior  in  quality  to  the 
