The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1871-05-06 00:00:00

A GAME LAW CASE.

In the Court of Queen's Bench the cause "Coleman, ap-
pelianto Bathurst, respondent' has been heard, and was a
game law case of considerable general importance. It raised
the question whether a tenant farmer, on an understanding
on m. ordinary yesrly tenancy that his landlord shall have
the game is liable to he convicted under the Game Act, for
taking the game upon his farm:—

The question arose thus :—Coleman, the appellant,
occupied a tarm under Sir Frederick Bathurst, at
Clarendon, in Wiltshire, and held under a yearly
tenancy, without lease, but under a written agreement
(not under seal), in which he undertook that he would
not destroy any game, nor allow any one to do so, and
that he would do his utmost to preserve the game,
but he did not in terms agree that the landlord
should take the game, though it appeared that, in
fact, fir six years the landlord had shot the game
when he pleased. The tenant, however, then for
some reason took out a certificate and shot the game
himself. For this he was summoned under the Game
Act (1 William IV,, cap. 32). At the hearing before
the magittrates at Salisbury (pres. nt the Earl of
Radnor and two other ruagistraks), evidence was given
on the part of the landlord, both of the agreement and
of the actual exercise by him of the right of shooting,
though the agreement was objected to as not under
seal, and eo not amounting to a legal reservation; and
also as unstamped, and Co inadmissible even as an
agreem-nt. As to the Camp objection the magis-
trat-s dremed it answered by the provisions in the
17ch and 18th Victoria, cap. 83, s. 27, and as to the
effect of the agreement, they were of opinion that it
reserved the game to the landlord; and they therefore
convicted the defendant, reserving a case for the
opinion of this Court—whether the agreement was
admissible and valid as a reservation of the game.
It was admitted -that the magistrates were right in
overruling the stamp objection, as it was a criminal
matter. As to the other point, it was urged, on the
part of the tenant, that there was no reaervation of the
game to the landlord. It was a mere agreement, for
breach of which the remedy Wag an ac' in.
At the close of the argument, the Lord Chief Juatice
said that though the case was not free from doubt, yet
the agre ems ut was not sufficient to bring the ea e
within the statute. It certainly precluded the tenant
from killing the game, but the Act only applied where
the right has Leon reserved to or belongs to the land.
lord, so that it was necessary to show that the game
belonged to the landlord. But the agreement did Lot
give the game to the landlord or to any one. It took
the game from the tenant, but did not give it to the
landlord. Therefore the landlord would have no right
to go on the land to kill the game, and the game did
not belong to him. This was not a question of civil
right, but of criminal offence, and the case must be
brought within the Att.

Mr. Justice Mellor concurred. The only question
was as to the cnistaution of the agreement, and it
was clear that it was drawn nailer a wrong notion as to
the sit ct of the law - a notion that the game be.
longd to the landlord; and hence the only atiindations
were that the tenant should not take the game. But
on that agreement the only remedy of the landlord was
a civil scion, and the offence contemplated by the
statute had not been committed.

Mr. Justice Lush differed, and thought that the
agreement did in effect give the game to the landlord.
The act applied where the game b longed to the land
lord. Now, under what circumstances did the game
belong to the landlord? The terms of the statute
showed that no watten or formal reservation was
required, and that a verbal agreement wou'd suffice,
sa that the real meaning and intention of the parties
were to be regardsd. llere the tenant was to pre-
nerve the game, and though it was not added "for the
landlordt" that was a necessary implication, and it was
t> his mind as clear as if it bat been stipulated in
terms that the game was to belong to the landlord.
That being no, tho statute in Ms opinion applied, and
the tenant was liable to a penalty U he killed the

I'.e map wity of the Court however, being in favour
of te appellant, the judgment was that the conviction
be qua eh: d.