The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1872-03-30 00:00:00

the
may
;o us
,ech.
uot
he

mug-
made
rtlays

/rs,ta
or
a ad-
Of
°dal!
cheat

S. SL
W.). A
!,
Boyd's
..eer 111
stamp,
Is nue
shville
Sleriort
euems
ed—£s
dduced

t steady,
I.s. per
supphed.
md prices
[Wetly, an
been On
ave ruled
I. Beans
r peas the
damn haa
n money.
previous'

rONDAT,
has been
I. About
distaetory
ottr own
La not been
apparent,
~ebt Snots
GI per
e. From

er parts of
d 114 Ocots
sul pit s of
Sales
1+,2 ruled
,1 lam sold
Id. per bib.
Id. per 81b.
eas been

id. L
72 7 4
4 4 65
. 5 46 0
.3 8 4 4
46 5 0
.0 540
50 00 0

offer. The
The Import
es 114 qr.
11 package
I. d.
. 4 4 4 10
.50 1 4
.. 6 86 0
..3 4 4 0
.. 4 460

import Into
kirk. Ne
ac under.
e, Ti,.. to SW:

uf anima.
lii some 10-
Isther eacier
ortel 100
but week
brussels, 30
Tne prices :
ent, a-0101.
trbllr 3. and
East Kent,
,111555. 1.3
M. to £2.

jet,. -Steen
'ls, and sone
of secondari
r, have been
Ihted of 49S
'urea 7,354
d about 244
,ogishwool:
I. ; halt-bred
.to 2s 241
lid. d3"'.
to

23. ; eoloo'd
per bor rel;
box ; smoked
plaice, lbs. to
ea. eloreb.
nth& 12°-
nen ; nag"
mt knalteL

A GAME CASE.
The cause of " liemionn4hl.- Ma. haislilmen beim; the 1
Master of the Rolla, and 5000 suit instituted in the interest
Oi frallelit NSW of the right Of 'Margins over extensive
estates in Norfe!k and Suffolk, culle I the Shcqdrou
estates, to restrain the tcuanta of a (aria on the property
from committing an alleged breach of the covenant of their '
lease relatirg to game. 1
The covenant in question stipulated in effect that I
the tenants of the farm should not kill or destroy,
but do their beat to preserve, the game and fish, and
should not shoot or sport over the land, or set traps or •
snares on the banks of the coverts above ground on
any part if the laud, except for killing and taking ,
rabbits. The right of killing and taking rabbits woo
reserved to the tenants throughout the estate by ,
the lease of the slaroting, such tenants doing
no injury to the game, nor setting traps and
snares on tie banks of the coverts above ground.
The plaintiff complained that the defendants .
had constructed "trapping, banks" round the
greater part if the coverts trilled "the Grove" on their
farm, which were stated to prevent the free ingress and
egress of game, anti ti obstruct the leseee of the shoot-
ing in the enjoyment of his spin king rights. These
"trappiug banks" were described as consisting of an
earthen bank, lit. high, surmounted by close wire
fencing, and fortified with briars and furze, projecting
on the inner side to an extent of 6in. or OM., and acting
like a elteratex de free; thus forcing the rabbits to
take to the holes left for their ingress and egress,
and in which traps were placed. The plaintiff
asserted these trapping banks were not constructed
or the genuine purpose of destroying rabbits, but
really with a view of destroying hares and phea-
sants. 'i he defendant Bahl that it was impossible
to avoid ireaasionallv catching a bare, however care-
fully the traps might heart, and they admitted catchin re
a few hares, all of which they said they had sent to ill;
lessee of the shooting. Another ground of complaint
was that the defendants hail employed their shepherd
to disturb the young game with his dog in the
summer of 1871, but the defendants deeded this charge,
and said that the shepherd was solely employed for the
purpose of driving the rabbits out of the corn, and
they Kahl that they hail discontinued the practice
since the filing of the bill in September last. The de-
fendants contended that they had a right to erect arid
maintain the trapping banks" as a protection to
their crops from the ravages of rabbits, of which they
alleged that the lessee of the shooting kept up an enor-
mous quantity, particularly as their farm was not let
at a game rent, and they submitted, in conclusion, that
the suit was beneath the dignity of the Court.
The Maeter of the Rolls said the parties had shown
an amount of hostility towards each other, which was
not tuinsual in disputes relating to game. The
trapping-1).111(s his Lordship thought were legitimate
so long as rabbits only were trapped. The defendants ,
admitted that a few hares had been taken, but it was
impossible to avoid occasionally taking a hare, and
such hares as had been taken had been sent
to the lessee of the shooting; and upon the
whole, if the case had rested there, he should have
been disposed to leave the plaintiff to his remedy at
law. But there was this further point to be considered
—that the defendants had employed their shepherd to
drive the rabbits out of the corn. If in so doing he
had disturbed the partridges in their nests, or injured
the young birds, that would be a breach of the cove-
nant. That, however, was not, in his lordship's
opinion, the real cause of the suit ; and, moreover, the
defendants had discontinued the practice mum the
filing of the bill, and stated on oath that they would
have discontinued it sooner if asked to do so. The bill
must be dismissed with costs.