No. 535-VOL. XI. APRIL 10, 1847. PRICE 18. *The following are the Names of the Gentlemen who favour THE JURIST with Reports of Cases argued and decided in the several Courts of Law and Equity:— A. GORDON, Esq. of the Inner Vice-Chancellor Wigram's [ F. FISHER, Esq. of Lincoln's {^ Temple, Barrister at Law. TENISON EDWARDS, Esq. of the The Lord Chancellor's [A. GORDON; Fig. of the Inner Court .... Temple, Barrister at Law. G. Y. ROBSON, Esq. of the Inner {G. of (TENISON EDWARDS, Esq. of the Vice-Chancellor Knight {W.W. Co,opan, Esq. of the Inner Bruce's Temple, Barrister at Law. LONDON, APRIL 10, 1847. THE question of the game laws takes a prominent place among the numerous legal reforms which have lately been projected. It is a subject of much interest, tracing its origin to the forest laws of feudal times, and yet at the present period exercising its influence over a large portion of the working classes of the country. To shew the extent of this influence, we may refer to the evidence of Mr. Phillips, one of the Secretaries of State, given before the Committee of the House of Commons, appointed in 1845, in which he stated, that, during five years, (1839-1843), game-law convictions were upwards of one-seventh of all the summary convictions in England and Wales. (Welford's Digest of the Evidence, Appendix, p. 60). By returns made to the House of Commons, it appears, that, in 1843, 4259 persons, and in the two years ending on the 1st January, 1846, 11,392 persons, were convicted of poaching. It becomes, therefore, an important consideration to inquire how far laws of so wide an operation are just in themselves or in their administration. We shall confine our observations merely to the legal points of the question, without entering into its social or political bearings. There are two peculiar features in the present system of the game laws: one is the special protection which has been thrown around animals feræ naturæ ; the second is the character of the penalties contained in these enactments, as compared with other laws of a penal nature. With regard to the first feature, animals feræ naturæ and unreclaimed, are not, as is well known, the subject of larceny, and the law relating to trespass not having been considered sufficiently stringent for the preservation of game, numerous and cumulative punishments, varying from imprisonment for three months to transportation for seven years, have been framed for this VOL. XI. M Court .............. Court of Queen's Bench {G. J. P.SMITH, Esq. of the Inner Queen's Bench Bail Court Court of Common Pleas, including Appeals under Registration of Voters Act.... Temple, Barrister at Law. A. V. KIRWAN, Esq. of Gray's Inn, Barrister at Law. Court of Exchequer...{ D. POWER, Esq. of Lincoln's W. PATERSON, Esq. of Gray Inn, Barristers at Law. Ecclesiastical and Admi- § J. P. Deane, D.C.L. of Doctors ralty Courts... Court of Review Commons. W. W. COOPER, Esq. of the Inner Temple, Barrister at Law. purpose. Any one may satisfy himself of this fact by turning to the principal statute upon the subject, (1 & 2 Will. 4, c. 32). By the civil law of Rome, the prohibition as to trespassing upon another man's land was deemed sufficient protection for game: "Feræ bestiæ et · volucres, pisces, capientium fiunt. . . . Nec interest quod ad feras bestias et volucres, utrum in suo quisque fundo capiat an in alieno. Plane qui in alienum fundum ingreditur venandi aucupandive gratiâ, potest a domino, si is præviderit, jure prohiberi, ne ingrediatur." (Digest. 41, ss. 1, 3). With regard to the second point which we have mentioned, the character of the penalties inflicted, the objections urged are, that they are cumulative, and are unnecessarily severe. By 1 & 2 Will. 4, c. 32, ss. 5, 23, the punishment for taking or killing game, or using any dog, gun, net, or other engine or instrument for searching for or killing game, by a person without a certificate, is a fine not exceeding 57. and costs, or three months' imprisonment and hard labour; but it is expressly provided, that this penalty shall not exempt from payment of the certificate duty, which shall be deemed a cumulative penalty. By 6 & 7 Will. 4, c. 65, s. 8, persons sporting without a certificate may be charged with double duty, being the sum of 8l. 18. 8d. A poacher, therefore, may be first imprisoned for three months, and then be further imprisoned "without bail or mainprize, until payment be made of the sum of 87. 11. 8d.," which in many cases would be tantamount to a sentence of perpetual imprisonment. By 9 Geo. 4, c. 69, the offence of night-poaching is punishable with imprisonment for three months, and at the expiration of that period the offender is to find sureties, himself in 107. and two sureties in 57. each, for his not so offending again for a year next following, and, in default of finding such sureties, he is to be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for the space of six months. It cannot SURI be denied, that cumulative penalties are opposed to the spirit of the English law, and we believe that this is the only case in which, after a man has undergone pu Court Papers. nishment for his offence, he is made liable to a further EQUITY SITTINGS, EASTER TERM, 10 Vic. purpose punishment for the want of sureties to prevent a repetition of the offence. The penalty imposed for his deficiency in money or in friends may be twice as long as that imposed for the crime. Captain Williams, one of the inspectors of prisons, in his evidence before the committee, to which we have referred, said, "The cumulative penalties and the peculiarities of these laws, the length of imprisonment, and the severity of punishment, could not fail to strike my observation. (Question 6695). I recollect," he said, "a case at Wakefield. The man was detected on the 22nd November. He was charged with three offences arising out of one: the first charge was a trespass on the 22nd November, (penalty 21., and costs 12s. 6d., or two months' imprisonment); then there was using a gun for the of killing game, on Sunday, the 22nd November, (the same penalty and costs, 27. 12s. 6d.); the third was using a gun for the purpose of killing game, without a certificate, on the 22nd November, (the same penalty and costs." (6718, 6719). Mr. Phillips said, "By 1 & 2 Will. 4, a poacher, who is convicted for three months as an uncertificated man, is not exempt from the fiscal process; but it is quite clear, from the way in which the returns have been made, that the magistrates have not acted upon it at all with a view to the revenue, but merely as an act of Parliament for the suppression of crime. (6065). It is directly contrary to the principle of the law, that a man should be punished twice for the same offence. (6074). The Game Laws are the severest laws, I will venture to say, in the statutebook; it is impossible to doubt it, I think." (6091). Much evidence was also given before the committee, as to the mal-administration of this code, and numerous suggestions were made for the remedy of the evils which were alleged to flow from the laws themselves, and the mode of carrying them into effect. Among the principal of these were the removal of all special protection from game, the establishment of a tribunal by which all summary convictions should be tested, the extension of a jury to game cases, and the abolition of certificates. We believe, that, if the laws relating to game were struck out of the statute-book altogether, the existing code would be found quite sufficient for the protection of property of every kind. The legal remedy given for a wilful trespass would still remain. If, however, this should be considered ineffectual, it would be easy to enact that game should be the subject of larceny, and thus to bring these offences into analogy with other offences against property. MASTER IN CHANCERY.-The Lord Chancellor has appointed James Trevor, Gent., of Bridgwater, in the county of Somerset, to be a Master Extraordinary in the high Court of Chancery. The Right Hon. Sir Thomas Wilde, Knt., Lord Chief Justice of her Majesty's Court of Common Pleas, has appointed Richard Pidcock, of Woolwich, in the county of Kent, Gent., to be one of the Perpetual Commissioners for taking the acknowledgments of deeds to be executed by married women, in and for the county of Kent. 1847. Before VICE-CHANCELLOR KNIGHT BRUCE, at Westminster. Glamorgan-Doe d. Richards Tuesday.. April 13 Motions and Causes. Petitions, Bankrupt Petitions, and 15 Motions and Causes. 16 (Petition-day).-Petitions and Causes. 17 Short Causes and Causes. v. Evans Doe d. Bennett v. Harry Carmarth.-Thomas v. Frede rick Same v. Same Surrey-Carruthers v. West Norwich-Burton v. Scott Linford v. Fitzroy Carmarth.-Bowen v. Owen Devon-Harrison v. Bankart Cornw.-Stevens v. Jeacocke Wilts-Robins v. Fennell Somerset-Reg. v. Chorley Tried during Mich. Term, 1846. Midd.-Greville v. Stulz & ors (in error) HILARY TERM, 1847. Midd.-Richardson v. Berkley Lincoln-Chapman v. Rawson Stafford-Whitmore v. Leak Hereford-Evans v. Horniatt 191 Pleas, Demurrers, Exceptions, Causes, Glo'ster-Doe d. Dyke v. Dyke and Further Directions. Wednesday 14 Easter Term. 20 21 Bankrupt Petitions and Ditto. Thursday Somerset-Parnell v. Smith TRINITY TERM, 1846. Midd.-Beale v. Mouls & ors. Lond.-Nicholls v. Atherstone Reg. v. Schlesinger Coales v. Simmons Doe d. Sumner v. Mountain v. Wilmott Midd.-Flower v. Roper STANDING FOR JUDGMEnt. Rogers v. Brenton Doe d. Earl of Egremont_v. Same v. Courtenay SPECIAL CASES AND DEMURRERS FOR EASTER TERM, 1847. Those marked thus are Special cases-the rest are demurrers. STANDING FOR JUDGMENT. Flanders v. Bunbury FOR ARGUMENT. *Dale v. Pollard & ors. Pleas, Demurrers, Exceptions, Causes, Cobb v. Allan & an. and Further Directions. 29 Motions and Ditto. 30 Nicoll v. Orgill v. Bush v. Weiss *Doe d. Renow & an. v. Ashley d. Hawksworth Hawksworth {Pleas Porterers, Exceptions, Causes, *Doe and Further Spence & an. v. Chodwick ] in 5 causes *In re Marsh & an. *In re The Commissioners In re J. Cunliffe & an. *Doe d. Haxby v. Preston Reg. v. The Justices of Ely2 rules Same v. Council of Warwick Same v. The Richmond Railway Co. Same v. R. Wright & ors. Same v. The Thames Haven Dock and Railway Co. *Same v. The Justices of Somerset Surrey. gleton Second Day. Cutler v. Bower In re Hutchinson Ex parte Robert Newman *Maddox v. Lerigo *In re Mosson Rearns *In re Robert Manley & an. Reg. v. The Governor &c. of the Poor of Bristol Same v. A. Hinchley, Esq. Same v. The Churchwardens of St. Dunstan's, Stepney Same v. Thomas Turk Same v. The Governors &c. of the Poor of Kingston-uponHull *Same v. George Best & ors., Justices &c. CROWN PAPER, EASTER TERM, 1847. Devonshire Middlesex. Devonshire Yorkshire ... Leicestershire Middlesex.... Westmoreland Commissioners of the Town of Dudley. Turk. Lord. Inhabs. of St. Thomas, New Sarum, Keen v. Reg. (in error). Reg. v. Inhabitants of Cosingby. Inhabitants of Carlton. Inhabitants of Addingham. Inhabitants of Colerne. Hunt & ors. Inhabitants of East Stonehouse. Inhabitants of Gomersal. Shaw, clerk. Commissioners of Stamps and Taxes. Irving. Same. Inhabitants of St. Pancras. Same. South-western Railway Company. Inhabitants of Monk Bretton. Middlesex.. Inhabitants of Crondall, Hants. Parratt v. Blunt Yorkshire.... Inhabitants of Marston-cum-Grafton. Buckinghamsh. Same Great Western Railway Company. Inhabitants of Clixby. Shipperbottom. Churchwardens of St. George the Mar Inhabitants of Hartbury. Inhabitants of Halesowen. Overseers of the Poor of the townships in the Oldham Union. Justices of the West Riding. Richardson. Douglass. Same v. Same Baker v. Plaskitt Surrey.-Couling v. Coxe Doe d. Lord v. Crago Derby.-Coxe v. Glue Same v. Saint HILARY TERM, 1847. Midd. Doe d. Muller v. Cla Von Melle v. Higgs Mollett v. Wackerbarth & ors. Angle v. Griffin Maxey v. Thomas Berks.-Pryce v. Belcher Smith v. Watson Gay & an. v. Lander Miles v. Pope Surrey.-Dawson v. Morrison Beaumont v. Brengeri Brown v. Chapman Collins v. Newstead Baker v. Sayer King v. Norman Adlington v. West |