The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1879-11-15 00:00:00

A GAME QUESTION,

In the High Court of Justice, Mr. Justice Field and Mr.
mastics Manisty has bad before them the appeal in the case
of " Tauton, Appellant—Jarvis Respondent." The case is
thus reported in The times :
This was a game case, being an appeal by a game-
keeper to Quarter Sessions against a conviction by
justices for a supposed trespass "in pursuit of game,
on which the Sessions stated a " case. ' The informa-
tion laid was "that the defendant Tauton did commit
trespassby unlawfully entering on land in the occupa-
tion of one Simmons in search of game, contrary to the
statute," the Game Act of land 2 William IV. The
facts were these :

The appellant was a gamekeeper in the service of
Sir Francis Geary, of Ozenheath, in Kent. and the re-
spondent was bailiff to Mr. Henry Simmons, of Wrot-
ham, in that county, who is lessee and occupier of and
has the sole right of shooting over certain land in that
parish, part of which is a wood known as Hatcham
Wood, and Sir-Francis Geary is the owner of and has the
sole r'ght of shooting over certain land, part of which
is a wood known as Hurst Wood, which at one point
adjoins to Mr. Simmons'e land. Ou the 11th of Novem-
ber, 1878, Sir F. Geary, with a party, was shooting
over Hurst Wood, which is separated from Hatcham
Wood by a field. varying in width from 50 to 200
yards, aod three pheamots, which had been shot, were
seen fo drop (-read or wounded in 11,tcharn Wood. On
toe 13th of November, about 4 p.m., tile gamekeeper
of Sir F. Geary (rauton) went into Hatcham Wood
with a retriever, and carrying a gun full cock, in
search of the pheasants. He was convicted, and
appealed. It was contended on his behalf, before the
Quarter Sessions, that the conviction was wrong, upon
tin ground that the gamekeeper merely went into
Hatcham Wood to pick up the pheasants which had
been shot and were seen to drop into the wood, and
was not committing a trespass by entering or being
upon land "in pursuit of game" within the meaning
of the Game Act, 1 and 2 William IV„ cap. 32 sec.
30. The Sessions quashed the conviction, and found
as a fact that Tauton went into Hatcham Wood to
search for and pick up pheasant which had been shot
on the laud of Sir F. Geary, and which had been seen
to fall in that wood, and which he believed to be dead
at that time. Such was the casa as stated by Mr. J.
G. Talbot, the chairman of Quarter Sessions. The
question for the opinion of the Court was whether,
upon this finding, the order of Sessions, quashing the
conviction, was right.
Mr, Grantham, Q.C. (with Mr. D. Kingsford) argued
the case for the present appellant, Mr. Simmons's
bailiff, contending that the conviction was right and
the order of Sessions wrong. He urged that beyond a
doubt Tauton was trespassing; but
The Court pointed out that he was not "in pursuit
of game," for that meant, as had been already held,
live game, whereas here, at the time the gamekeeper
went into the wood, the birds were dead.
Mr. Grantham urged that the Sessions did not find,
and it could not be taken as a fact, that the birds were
dead _ _ _

Mr. Justice Field said that was not material, it
being found as a fact that the gamekeeper believed
them to be dead, at. d so he was not "in pursuit of
game "—i.e., of live game; and it was enough that it
did not appear they were alive.
Mr. Kingsford, on the same side, urged that it was
stated the birds fell "dead or wounded," and the
game-keeper could not have known whether they were
alive or dead.
Mr. Justice Field: If he thought they were only
wounded and were alive and went to shoot or capture
them he would be within the enactment, as "in pur-
suit Of game ; " but here he believed they were dead—
e., that they were not alive; and could it be held
that he was in pursuit of what he did not believe to
exist—i.e., live game?
Mr. Kingsford urged that the gamekeepar went to
take them whether they were alive or dead, and he
went went with a gun folly cocked as well a i with a
dog. The Sessions had cautiously abstained from
finding that the birds were dead, or any fact from
which it could be clearly inferred.

Mr, Justice Field : We must not be asked to draw
inferences of fact sush as the Sessions might have
drawn. If, indeed, it was found that the keeper went
to get the birds alive or dead, it might be otherwise;
but it wile not so found,

Mr. Kingsford urged that belief was not material,
and that it was enough to sustain the conviction that
it was not found as a fact that the birds were dead.

Mr. Day argued, for Sir F. Geary's gamekeeper,
that on the finoing of the Sessions the conviction could
not be supported. The offence was trespassing "in
pursuit of game." The latter words were the gist of
the aeries ; the mere trespass was only the subject of
a civil proceeding, not a summary conviction. As
regarded the trespass, of course intention was not
material—the fact was enough. But intention implied
in the words "in pursuit of game" was of.the essence
of the offence. How could a man be said to have been
"in pursuit of game"— i.e., of live game—who did not
believe that there was any live game? He was then
interrupted by the Court, who said they did not require
to hear him further, and they proceeded to give judg.
ment in favour of the appellant.

Mr. Justice Field, in giving judgment, said that the
question was whether the offence was shown to have
been committed, and the offence was trespassing in
pursuit of game—i.e., as had been held, live game.
No doubt the defendant had committed a trespass, but
was it in pursuit of live game? It was established
that a dead bird was not within the statute, but it
was urged that the birds wera wounded, not dead; but
this did not appear. How could a man be said to have
been in pursuit of iris game when he believed them to
be dead? Whit was he searching for? Dead game,
not live birds; and how, then, could he have been
"in pursuit" of live birds? The conviction, there.
fore, was wrong and ought to be quashed.
Mr. Justice Manisty concurred. He 'thought the
supposition excluded that the keeper went in pursuit
of live game, as he went in search of birds he believed
to ba dead.
Judgment for the appellant.