G A 
fendant, on the 7lh day of December aforefald, in the 
year aforefaid, at, See, (negativin.^ the qualifications of 
2 2 and 23 Car. II. c. 25.) did keep and nfe. a s;un to kill and 
dejiroy the game ] and thereupon li.- faid defendans be¬ 
fore me the fnne juftice, by the oath of one cr‘dible 
witnefs aforefiid, according 10 the form of the ftatire 
afor fitid, is convifted, and for his offence - forefaid, 
hath forfeited 5I. to be diftr'b 1 ed, &c.”—Cockell ob- 
jedled, that it d d nof appear upon the conviftion of 
what the defendant Itad been convifted : it only f d, 
“ thereuron the d- fendan' o't, &c. befo-e me the f.irne 
juft ce, by the oath of on- credible wUnefs, according 
to the form of the ftatute, is convicted, and for his of¬ 
fence h 'h fo!feit d, drc.” This is only a conclufion of 
lav., and not an adjud cation of the jufiice. There is 
nothin, to connect it v i h th 'f which precedes it; fuch 
as that “ h.'t is Cu vidted of the premif-"s,” or *' in man¬ 
ner and form aforela d.”—Bu' the court were clearly of 
opinion that the e w s no ground for -.hit objection; 
but defired it might be rgued again on another objec¬ 
tion, which they fugsehed 'o the counfel; whether the 
evidence was f fiiciently fer f rth, fo that the court 
could fee by what adt th. defend nt had incurred the 
pen dry; for they obferved, that the aft o( keeping a 
gun was in itfelf avb g -ous, ..nd it mult be fliewn to 
be kept for the purpofe of killing game, in order to bring the 
party keepiitg it v, i hin .h .ft; it was not like keep¬ 
ing a greyhouad or a fnare ; wii'ch could not be kept 
for any other pur of , and which was expiefsly prohi¬ 
bited by the aft.—Wood, in conlequence, argued againit 
the conviftion. It is a fatal obje6t on that the evidence 
on which the conviftion ft gr. und-d, is not particu¬ 
larly fet for h ; the vi.:ence wh ch is Hated is merely 
a repetition of ihe information. Oi.ly the le'ult arifing 
from the faCts fet for’ h ; bu' ev .ry p. rt of .'he evidence 
ought to have been fpecially fhe .tn, fh.u the court might 
have had <..n opportunity of iudgin^. whclter the juftice 
drew a legal and proper nference front the fafts fworn 
to, fo as to bring the defendant wiihin ihe penalty of 
the aft. The evidence which was given before the juf¬ 
tice, could not be given in the manner in which it is 
Hated in the conviftion, for th s evidence is the lan¬ 
guage of the aft of parliament, and even if it was given 
in this general way, the j -ft ce ought tc have r-fufed 
it.—Chambre contra did not dil'pute ihe general rule that 
it was neceflary to Hate the evidence particularly in a 
conviftion, but infilled that iii tiie^prefent cafe, the evi¬ 
dence was fufficiently Hated, bei .ir exprefsly Hated that 
the detendant kept and ifed the gun to kill and defray the 
game ; that this form of conviftion has been almoH rini- 
verfally ufed on fimilar occafions.—AHihuril J. If this 
were a new cafe, I Hiotild moH undoubtedly be of opi¬ 
nion that this conviftion could not be fupported, be- 
caufe I think the evidence Ihoiild be fet forth particu¬ 
larly, that we may judge wheth-r the juli ce has con- 
vifted upon proper evidence. The faff of keeping or 
ufing the gun for the purp.ofe ofdeHroying game Ihould 
appiear; but it is only Hated here that the defendant 
kept and ufed. See., which is the refult of his evidence. 
Then whethei he kept it for the purpofe of killing 
is likewile a qtieHion of law ; for an ignorant witnefs in 
the country m ght fancy that a woodcock was game. So 
that it teems to me that permitting this general evidence 
to be Hated, is allowing the witnefs to give his fenti- 
ments on the law as well as on the fafts. But as the 
pfecedents are ulu.tlly in this form, and as the convic¬ 
tion in K. V. Hartley was fimilar to the prefent, it is 
better to ftrpp ort this convifiioii, than by qualhing it to 
overturn all former pnecedents.—Buller J. If this pre¬ 
cedent had never been adupied, 1 Ihoi.ld have been of 
opinion that the evidence Hiould .have been fully fet 
for h; but after fo many conviftions have been made 
in the fame form, it would be dangerous to qitalh the 
prefent. The diHindtion taken in K. u. Filer is good 
law; it is not an ofteuce to keep or ufe a gUDj uiiiefs it 
M E, 227 
be kept or ufed for the pvrpofe of killing game. But it is 
here Hated by the evidenc ■, that the def^endant did keep 
and ufe a gun to kill and deH-oy the game.” As to 
the o her queHion refpeffing game, I cannot agree that 
the witnefs in fweariii;!; that the defendant ufed a gun 
to deHroy game, would be fvearing to a queHion of 
law', bee ufe it is fettled l.y aft of parliament, and every 
man is bound to know what is game: if he fwears that to 
to be game which is not fo in lav/, he w'ould be guilty 
of I erjury. Game nuiH be underHood in its legal fenfe. 
—Grofe J. I c nnot give my confent to fupport this 
conviction. The juHice Hiould return particularly all 
the fafts and the conclufion in the conviftion ; firll the 
information, the fummons, the appearance, or the de¬ 
fendant’s default in nor appiearing, that the information 
was read to the defend int, that he was alked what he 
hv.d to plead, the whole of the evidence particularly, 
and the adjudication. The witnefs Ihould fwear to the 
faEls, and not to the law: and in this cafe it is alinoH in¬ 
credible that the witnefs ihould have fworn in the man¬ 
ner in which this evidence is fet out: the juHice Ihould 
not have received it, if it were oH'ered in this general 
v/ay, but Ihould have quefiioned the witnefs as to the 
manner in w'hich this gun was kept, for what purpofe 
it was ufed, and what particular kind of game he killed 
or attempted to kill. All thefe particulars Ihould have 
been fpeci.illy fet forth, in order that we might judge 
whether they conHituted an oft’ence within the aft'. Here 
the Avitnefs fwore to the law, namely, that the defend¬ 
ant kept and ufed a gun to kill and defray the game, I had 
rather choofe to decide this cafe according to the K. v. 
Baker and K. v. Hartley. And although this convic¬ 
tion cannot be quafiied, becaufe my brothers have given 
their opinions in fupport of it, yet I did not choofe that 
this queHion fhould pafs fubflentio, el'pecially as this de¬ 
claration of myopinionmay have theefieft ofinducingjuf- 
tices in future to Hate the whole matter upon the record. 
There was another doubt entertained by the court, 
namely, whether it fufficiently appeared that the evi¬ 
dence was given in the defendant’s prefence ? but it was 
over-ruled. Conviftion affirmed. 23 . and £. 2 F. 18. 
CasE of K. w. Swallow, Trin.T. 39 Geo. Ill.—This was 
conviiition in the fum of 15I. for three penalties under 
the game laws. Lord Kenyon C. J. faid, There is no 
objeftion to the conviftion on the ground that the de¬ 
fendant has been convifted of feveral penalties. It is 
the conHant praftice in aftions on the game laws, and 
not unfrequent in conviftions. Even in iiidittments for 
capital oftences, fev'eral offences are fometimes charged, 
as burglary, and Healing in the dwelling houfe tc the 
value of 40s. I by no means wifli that magifirates in 
drawing up conviftions ffiould fet all forms at nought; 
but they ought not to be entangled in greater forms and 
ceremonies than the fuperior courts.. The word “ con¬ 
vifted” in this cafe applies to the feveral offences with 
which the defendant'Was charged, and to the evidence 
given in fupport of them ; and the following words are, 
“ and for his feveral offences aforefaid, &c.” Taking 
the whole of the adjudication together, it is evident 
that the magifirate convifted the defendant in the three 
feveral offences charged. Conviftion affirmed. Z),and£. 
8 V. 284. 
C.'t SE of K. y. Gage, HU. T. 9 Geo. — The defendant was 
convifted for ufing a greyhound in killing hares. Ex¬ 
ception was taken to the convidtion that the Hatute had 
only given the juffices jurifdiction to convidt upon the 
oath of one or more credible witnelfes, whereas this was 
upon his own confeffion, which it was infilled the juHiccs 
had no power to take. But by the court : The con.. 
vidHion muH be confirmed. 1 he intent of mentioning 
the oath of one witnefs, was only to direft the juffices, , 
that they Hiould not convift on lefs evidence ; fuppofe 
the confeffion had not been before the juffices, but be¬ 
fore two A«itneffes who had fworn it; that would be 
convifting him on the oaths of witnelfes; and yet the 
evidence 
