The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1878-11-23 00:00:00

A HUNTING DISPUTE.

In the High Court of Justice (Queen's Bench Division),
the cause of "Paul and Others, Appellants v. Summerhaves,
Respondent " has been heard, and was an appeal from a
conviction by the Justices of Somerset._

The Appellants were summoned for trespass and
assault. It appeared that the Appellants were seen
by the Respondent riding leisurely along a field ad-
joining his father's, being out with the Taunton Vale
foxhounds, the hounds having previously crossed
the field in pursuit of a fox. When the Appellants
were within about ten yards of the Respondent's
field he said "Gentlemen, I forbid you from coming
on this land." Paul said to his friend, "Come
on, this is the Prince of Wales's land," and tried
to get through the gap in the hedge, but the Re-
spondent pushed his horse back. The attempt was
repeated to enter the field. but without success. Then
Paul struck the Respondent more than once with his
riding whip. The Respondent took up a stone, when
Paul and his friend got off their horses and entered
the field, where a ,struggle ensued between the three.
The Respondent summoned them for an assault and
trespass. The Justices convicted the appellants on
the ground that there was no evidence to satisfy them
that a fox had been seen on the day in question. It
was contended for the appellants before the magistrates
that the defendants should be allowed to sever their
defence, so as to be able to give evidence one for the
other, but the justices refused the application. It was
contended that the Respondent, who was a son of the
occupier of the land, had no authority or power to
forbid those gentlemen from trespassing. The mills-
trates, hower, convicted
,the Appellants, from which
they now appealed.
Mr. H. T. Cole, Q.C., now contended that the
Respondent, who was attending to the business of the
farm for his father, who was afflicted at the time, had
no authority, expressed or implied, to forbid any per-
son from coming on the land. There was no evidence
to show that he was any other than a servant. The
father, who was an old sportsman, would, no doubt,
willingly have let the Appellants come on to that
land. Fox-hunting was a recognised sport, and
according to the Game Act a fox-hunter was at
liberty to trespass on the land of others when fresh in
pursuit of a fox, which WAS vermin and a noxious
animal, doing no unnecessary damage. The remedy
was by action for any damage done. At common law
a man in pursuit of a fox might go anywhere after it,
and no one could forbid him lawfully, and here they
were stopped before they got on the land.
Lord Coleridge: Admit that; but a gentleman in
fresh pursuit of a fox has no right to horsewhip
another.
Mr. Charles, Q C., with whom was Mr. Warry,
supported the conviction. A fox hunter, he con-
tended, had no right to trespass on land against the
will of the °coupler or owner of land.
Lord Coleridge, in delivering judgment, said the
point with reference to the Defendants having the
right to sever their defence was a matter in the dis-
cretion of the Justices, and the Court saw no reason
to interfere with their decision. He was also of
opinion that the 11,spondent had authority to forbid
this trespass. The Game Act, the let and 2r.d William
IV., did not apply to the case of fox-hunting. The
claim put forward with reference to the Prince of
Wales was not bond fide BO as to oust the jurisdiction
of the magistrates. Then with regard to the real
question in this case, whether the circumstances
justified the Respondent in resisting the entry of the
appellants after they had been forbidden, he was
clearly of opinion that he was, and that fox-hunting
could not be exercised adversely to the owner of the
land. No such right existed, but it must be carried
on like all other sport, subject to the general rights of
mankind with reference to the ordinary and
established rights of property. There was nothing to
justify a field of fox-hunters entering a gentleman's
garden, trampling it down, and destroying the flowers
and plants. No such right existed at common law,—
Mr. Justice Mellor concurred.
The appeal was consequently diimissed, and the
conviction affirmed.