THE LAW RELATING TO DEER AND GROUND GAME 
of the household resident on the land, a person in his ordinary service 
on the land, or a person bona fide employed by him for reward in taking 
ground game. Every such person is bound to produce his authority on 
demand by anyone authorized to require its production, and, in default 
of production, shall be deemed to be an unauthorized person. 
A landlord in occupation of his own land has been held to be not an 
occupier within the meaning of the Act.* But an outgoing tenant who 
“ holds over ” for the purpose of getting in his crops has been decided 
to be an occupier so as to maintain or resist an action for trespass.f So 
also persons permitted by the tenant to use small pieces of ground for the 
purpose of growing potatoes have been held to be occupiers.^ 
When a tenant sublets his land he ceases to be an occupier for the 
purposes of the Ground Game Act. 
The term “ occupier ” is not defined by the Act, but may be taken to 
mean the person for the time being lawfully entitled to, and exercising, 
the exclusive possession of land. Certain persons are expressly declared 
(section 1, sub-section 2) not to be occupiers; for example, a person having 
merely a right of common, and a person occupying land for grazing 
purposes for a period not exceeding nine months. The term “occupier ” 
will include joint tenants; their powers of appointment of persons to 
kill or take ground game can only be jointly exercised in writing, but 
whether (as is probably the case) each could exercise the rights of an 
occupier in killing ground game by himself is a point which, so far as we 
are aware, has not been judicially determined. 
As to what constitutes “ a resident on the land,’’ the word reside has 
been held to mean “ eat, drink and sleep, ’’§ and therefore, although a 
person merely spending the day would not be a resident, a guest for a 
week end or a few days presumably might be. In the case of Stuart v. 
Murray (1894) the Court of Justiciary in Scotland decided that a person 
bona fide invited to stay for a week was, for the time being, a member of 
the household resident on the land. 
The question what constitutes a “ professional rabbit killer ” is also 
one that often arises. According to sub -section 1 (b), he must be a person 
bona fide employed for reward, and only one such person can be authorized 
at a time. This definition does not cover the case of a friend coming for a 
* Smith V. Hunt, 54 Law Times Reports, 422. 
^ Boraslon v. Green, 16 East., 71 ; and Griffiths v. Puleston, 13 M. & W., 358. 
IGreenslade v. Tapscott, 3 L.J. Ex., 328. § Regina v. North Curry, 4 B. & G., 959. 
331 
