2^6 
G A 
jag game, and when it is Co, doth then fail within the 
words of the a6l; yet as it is an inftrument proper, and 
frequently necefTary to be kept and iifed for other pur- 
pofes, as the killing of noxious vermin, ^nd the like, 
!t is not the having a gun, without applying it in the 
deflruefior of game, that is prohibited by the a6l: but 
it is otherwil'e of lurchers, harepipes, and fucli like, 
which are peculiarly fitted or difpofed for killing game. 
The bare keeping of thefe for tlie purpofc of killing game, 
is fufficient to convict an offender, and it will be incum¬ 
bent upon the defendant himfelf to prove, that he kept 
them for other purpofes. And the conviftion was there¬ 
fore qua/lied. After wliich, Strange folicitor-general 
faid, that in the cafe of K. v. King, E. 3 Geo.—Lord 
Macclesfield faid, that he was in the houfe of commons 
when this adt was made, and he himfelf objedted to the 
infe- ting of the word gun therein, becaufe it might be 
attended with great inconvenience. And. 2cc. 1 Seff, 
C. 204. 2 5 <r. 1098. 
Case of K. u. Johnfon, Ilil. T. 6 Geo.—Convidlionfor 
keeping a gun, not being qualified. Exception was 
taken, that there was not a re fonableyK-wnoto; it was 
antwered, that the defendant appeared at the time and 
made defence, fo that cures all defecls in the fummons. 
And by the court, The anl’wer is right, i Str. 261. 
Cas e of K..V. Heber, Hil. T. 5 Geo. II.—On a rule to 
lliew caufe, why an information fhould not be granted 
againft the defendant, Mr. Heber, a juffice of the peace, 
for convidling tv/o perfons, Hargrave and Lancafter, for 
killing game, not being qualified; the complaint in re¬ 
lation to Hargrave was, that the defendant fent his war¬ 
rant for him, by which he was arrefted, without any 
previous information upon oath ; in relation to Lan¬ 
cafter, the complaint was, that he happening to be pre- 
fent at the time Hargrave was convidted, the defendant 
took that opportunity of convidling him alfo, without 
giving him any previous fummons, by which he might 
prepare himfelf for his defence. The court (the chief 
juftice being abfent) weie vmry clear, that an informa¬ 
tion ought to go againft the juftice for his behaviour in 
relation to Lancafter ; for they faid, it was a moft known 
rule of common law, that no man ought to be convidled 
of an offence, till he has previous notice given him of 
the charge, that he may be prepared to put in his 
anfwer to it. Accordingly the rule, as to him, was 
made abfolute. As to Hargrave, judge Probyn thought, 
that the rule with refpedl to him alfo ought to be made 
abfolute. He faid, a warrant deprives a man of his li¬ 
berty ; and therefore a fummons ought only to iffue, 
and not a warrant, without an information upon oath. 
The other two judges did not think this a fufficient 
caufe for granting an information. And the'cfore the 
rule, with refpedl to Hargrave, was difeharged.—In this 
cafe, the court would not proceed to make a rule to 
ffiew caufe, until the convictions were removed thither 
by certiorari: for, they faid, if there was no conviction, 
there ought to be no information; and if there was a 
convidlion, th s ought to appear by the record. 2 Bar- 
nardijl. 34, loi. 
If, however, a convidlion before a juftice on the game 
laws ftate that the defendant was prejent at the time 
when the information was read and the witneffes e.xa- 
mined ; and that when called on for his defence, he pro¬ 
duced no evidence, and did not require any further 
time; that is fufficient, wiihout ftating, that he was 
previoufly fummoned to anfwer, &c. K. v. Stone, i 
Eaji's R. 639. 
Case of K. u. Thomas Spencer Crowther, Hil. T. 26 
Geo. III .—1 his was a convidlion before a juftice on 5 
Anne, c. 14, tor ufing a gun. After ftating the infor¬ 
mation, which negatived fpecifically every one of the 
qualifications in 22 and 23 Car. 11 . c. 25, it proceeded 
to ftate, that, “ On the fame 14th day of the fame month 
of September 1785, at the parilli of Sevenoak, in the 
county of Kent, one credible witnefs, to wit, Edward 
M E. 
Tye, came before me the faid juftice, and by his depo- 
fition taken in writing before me the fame juftice, upon 
his oath, &c. fwore, affirmed, and faid, that the afore- 
faid T. S. Crow'ther, on the 8th day of September afore-^ 
faid, in the year aforefaid, at the parifh, &c. did keep 
and life a gun, and certain dogs called fetting dogs or 
pointers, to kill and deftroy the game ; and hunted them 
over certain grounds, part of Black Hall farm, in the 
parifh, &c. and did then and there fhoot at and kill 
one partridge with his faid gun, againft the form of the 
flatiite in fuch cafe made and provided. And after¬ 
wards, that is to fay, on the 15th day of September in 
the year aforefaid, he the faid T. S. Crowther, having 
been duly fummoned in this behalf, appeareth before 
me the juftice aforefaid, and is prefent to make his de¬ 
fence againft the faid charge; and having^heard the 
fame, and the aforefaid depofition of the faid Edward 
Tye having been read over again to the faid E. Tye in 
the prefence and hearing of the fiid T. S. Crowther, 
and the faid E. Tye having again affirmed his /aid depofition 
to be true, in the prefence and hearing of the [aid T. S. Crowther^ 
he the faid T. S. Crowther, is alked by me, the faid' 
juftice, If he can fay any thing for himfelf, why he, the 
faid T. S. Crowther, fhould not be conviiSled of the 
premifes above charged upon him in the form aforefaid : 
whereupon the faid T. S. Crowther faith, that he is 
not guilty of the faid offence, but he doth not produce 
to me any evidence whatfoever,- that he is in any man¬ 
ner qualified, allowed, or authorized, by the lav/s of 
this realm, to have, ufe, or keep, for himfelf or any 
other perfon, any gun, fetting dog, pointer, or any other 
engine, to kill and deftroy the game of this kingdom. 
And thereupon it manifeftly appearing to me, that the 
aforefaid T. S. Crowther is guilty of the faid offence 
charged upon him in the faid information, I do there¬ 
fore hereby convi6l him of the offence aforefaid, and do 
declare and adjudge that he the faid T. S. Crowther 
hath forfeited the fum of 5I. for the offence aforefaid, 
&c.”—It was moved to quafti this conviftion on the 
two following grounds : ift, That the evidence on which 
it was founded was not given in the prefence of the de¬ 
fendant, for on his appearing before the juftice, the 
witnefs only affirmed his former depofition to be true, 
and K. v. Vipont was cited, zdly. The qualifications 
required by 22 and 23 Car. II. c. 25, were not negatived 
by the evidence. I'he evidence was only general, that 
what he did was againf the form of the fatute, fee. and 
K. V. Jarvis, and K. v. "Wheatman, were cited.—In 
anfwer thereto it was faid, That the depofition of the 
witnefs h.iving been read over in the defendant’s pre¬ 
fence, and affirmed by him to be true, was the fame as 
if he had been re-fworn.—That as to the other objec¬ 
tion, the information had negatived every feparate qua¬ 
lification, and was fo ftated in the conviltion, and there 
was no occafion to prove it by evidence. It was impof- 
fible to bring evidence to prove the want of each quali¬ 
fication negatively. If the information is fpecific, a 
general depofition that he is not qualified, is fufficient 
to put the defendant upon proving that he was.—By tlie 
court. The firft objeiaion is good : the witnefs ought 
to have been re-fworn in the defendant’s prefence. As 
to the other point, there is no cafe in which it has been 
direiSlly decided, that the evidence ihould negative 
every particular qualification. It cannot be fo from the 
nature of the cafe.—CohviiSlion quaftied. D. and E. 
Case of K. w. Thomfon, Trin. T. 27 Geo. III.—This 
was a convidlion on 5 Anne,c. 14, ftating an information 
on 8rh December 1786; the appearance of the defendant 
on 'lie 9th, after being fummoned, and the plea of not 
guilty, and'then proceeding as follows: “ neverthelefs, 
on the faid 9th day of December in the year aforefaid^ 
at, &c. one credible witnefs, to wit, Richard Taylor, 
of, &c. conietl) before me the faid juftice, and before 
me the fame juftice upon his oath| faith, that tlie de¬ 
fendant, 
