THE LAW RELATING TO DEER AND GROUND GAME 
the Gun Licence Act, 1870, has direct reference to rabbits. That section, 
which imposes a penalty for using or carrying a gun without a licence, 
exempts (amongst others) any occupier of lands, or his authorized agent, 
from penalty if using a gun for the purpose only of scaring birds or killing 
vermin on such lands. A Scottish farmer who, from an agriculturist’s 
point of view, regarded rabbits as “ vermin,” resisted payment of the 
gun licence on the ground that he came within the exemption. He was 
summoned before the Sheriff at Cupar, who after hearing the case argued, 
decided that rabbits were not vermin. From this decision the farmer 
appealed, and in February, 1898, Lord Stor month -Darling, considering 
himself bound by precedent {Gosling v. Brown^ 1878, 5 R. 755), though 
against his better judgment, reversed the Sheriff’s finding, and decided 
that rabbits were “ vermin,” and that the farmer was accordingly exempt 
from taxation. This verdict was once more challenged, and the full Court 
of Appeal in Edinburgh, a month later, reversed Lord Stormonth- 
Darling’s decision, and, supporting the Sheriff’s opinion, held that rabbits 
were not vermin. It is now, therefore, conclusively settled that rabbits are 
not ” vermin ” within the meaning of the Gun Licence Act, 1870, and 
that a ten-shilling licence is required for shooting them. 
Section 5 enacts that an “ occupier ” cannot exercise his concurrent 
right to the ground game if the right to kill or take it has been already 
vested in someone else by lease dated prior to the passing of this Act.* 
By the same section it is further enacted that “ nothing in this Act shall 
affect any special right of killing or taking ground game to which any 
person other than the landlord, lessor, or occupier may have become 
entitled before the passing of this Act by virtue of any franchise, charter, 
or Act of Parliament.” This is a very important provision, since it defeats 
the right of an occupier to kill ground game if the land in his occupation 
happens to be land over which a right of ” free warren ” is claimed. By 
way of illustration it may be stated that in the case of Lord Carnarvon v. 
Clarkson^ where the plaintiff claimed a right of free warren over lands 
in the occupation of the defendant, it was held that the latter was not 
entitled to kill rabbits on the land in question as he would otherwise be 
at liberty to do were no such franchise claimed by the lord of the manor. 
Section 6 prohibits the shooting of ground game by night, setting spring 
traps anywhere in rabbit-holes, and employing poison. 
*See a decision by Mr Justice Ghitty in Allkusenv, Brooking, 51 Law Times Reports, N.S. 57, and Hassard v. 
Clark, 13 L. Rep., Irish Chancery Division, 391. 
335 
