The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-11-09 00:00:00

GAME LAWS.

The following curious case occurred at the Bolton Petty
SPERi01111:-

On Saturday, the 10th of September last, James Latham,
of Norwich, glazier, a person unqualified to kill game, was
seen to kill a hare with a gun in the parish of Dean.
Latham, being aware of this, on the Monday following
went to the Session Room in this town with Thomas Jolly,
who, at Latham's request, laid an information against him
under the sth of Anne, c. 14, for using a gun to kill and
destroy game, to which information Latham pleaded guilty,
and was convicted before Ralph Fletcher, Esq. in the pe-
nalty of 5/. half of which was paid to Jolly the informer,
who returned it to Latham, and the other half was of
course distributed according to the Act. On the 10th of
September another information was laid against Latham,
under the 9th of Anne, c. 25, which is an extension of the
.sth of Anne, for having the same hare in his possession
after he had so killed it. The Magistrate, however, not
being satisfied that he had a power of convicting in 3oth
cases, directed the subjoined query to be submitted to Mr.
Starkie, " Whether he could or ought again to convict
Litliam under the 9th of Anne, c. 2.5, in the penalty of
SI. for having the same hare in his possession on the same
day, and in the same parish, as when he killed it, and for
which he bad been so convicted ?" The opinion of Mr.
Starkie having b:en obtained, the Magistrate directed it to
be read to the defendant. It was nearly as follows:
. .

I am of opinion, that in strictness the party is liable to be con-
victed for having a hare in possession on a particular day, notwith-
standing a prior conviction for having used a gun on the same day.
For the offences are, in point of law. distinct ; a man may incur a
penalty for the using of a gun, although no game be in fact de-
stroyed. On the ether hand, though gams be destroyed by the
using of a gun, yet, if the offender were afterwards to expose that
game for sale (and whether he did so on the same or on a different
day would be immaterial), it is quite clear that he would, by so
doing, incur a second penalty. 'sow as the statute 9 Ann, c. 25,
s. 2, makes the possession of game by an unqualified person to be
equivalent in all respects to his having exposed it to sale, it appears
to me, that in such a case as the present, the party must be regarded
in the same point of view as if he had actually exposed the hare I,r
sale, and that consequently he is liable to a second penalty. lam
not aware of any provision in any of the Game Acts which exempts
a party from conviction for having game in possession, or for hav-
ing exposed game to sale, in respect of a previous conviction for
using a gun, although the gun may have been used for the destruc-
tion of the game afterwards had in possession or exposed to sale;
and, in the absence of any such clause, It appears to me that the
offences are to be considered as distinct, and that the offender is
liable to distinct and separate penalties. But in the present instance
it *poems to me that the first conviction is merely null and void on
the ground of collusion between the informer and the party informed
against: for this is a mere evasion of the law, by which an offender
gets rid of one half of the penalty which the Legislature intended to
impo e; and the law will not, in general, permit a party to avail
himselt of a fraudulent and evasive judgment, in a collateral pro-
ceeding. See the Duchess of Kingston's case, 11„ State Trials,
261 ; Crosby r. Levy, 12, East, 4(19; Martin Lolly's case: and
see the St. 4 11. VII. c. 20, which, although it be applicable in its
terms to actions only, yet seems to be declaratory of the common
law in cases of collusion. •
" THOMAS STARKIE.
" Inner Temple. Oct. 12, 1825."
Such an exposition of the law, of course, rendered a con-
viction imperative, and the defendant was adjudged to pay
the mitigated fine of St. including costs.—Buitun Exprcis.

HORRIBLE MORD,: a.—A horrible event, which recalls
the crime of Papavoine, has occurred to shock every feeling
of morality and humanity. A cook, named Ildwiette
Cormier, 22 years of age, has murdered, without any ap-
parent cause er motive, a girl yet in her infancy, the
(laughter of a fruiterer in the rue de la Pepiniere. The
details of the murder arc too horrible for publication.
Henrietta Cormier has declared herself pregnant, and pre-
tends to have lunged to commit a murder. She was taken
to the Prefecture.—Constiktionnet.