The Sun.
London, England, 1862-10-29 00:00:00

ANOTHER CURIOUS GAME CASE.

On Saturday last, before the Hon Colonel Scott and E.
Wheler, T. Cotton, R. Greaves, and J. Machen, Esqrs.
William Harrow, alias "Cock Harrow," from Coventry,
was charged with trespassing in search of game in the
parish of Stoneleigh, on the 16th inst.
Mr. Wright, solicitor, appeared in support of the informa-
tion. In opening the case the latter observed that it was not
one of an ordinary character. Mr. Wright then went on to
say that on the 16th of this month the keeper was going along
the road from Gibbet Hill to Stoneleigh village, when he saw
defendant on the waste land by the road-side with a gun in his
hand, apparently trying to get a shot at something which two
dogs were hunting in the bushes. The law in this case was
clear, for it had been decided in the Queen's Bench, in the
case of Regina v. Pratt, argued on April 21, 1855, that
where the evidence left no doubt that a person was on a
public road for the purpose of killing game, the land on
each side of which was a gentleman's private property, that
person was as much a trespasser as though he had been on
the land adjoining it. He then called George Knight, head
gamekeeper to Lord Leigh, who said that while riding
along the road from Gibbet Hill to Stoneleigh,
about twelve o'clock on the. day in question, he saw a
dog beating a field by the road side, and another
dog beating the bushes on the waste land by the side of
the road, and defendant with a gun in his hand trying
to get a shot at something. A hare was run out of the
bushes by one of the dogs, and when defendant saw wit-
ness he took his gun to pieces and put it into his pocket.
Witness afterwards met a policeman, and returned and
took the gun from the defendant, who produced a game
certificate, aLel said that was the "little thing that would
lick him." Defendant then told two of his companions,
who had now come up, to run away with the dogs. The
land on both sides of the road belonged to Lord Leigh, who
was lord of the manor.

Defendant, on being asked whether he had any questions
to put to the witness, said it was of no use to say anything.
He was there, and the dogs were there also, but the dogs
did not belong to him.
Mr. Knight, in reply to the bench, said the defendant
refused to give his name.

Upon being called on for his defence, the defendant said
he had no witnesses to bring forward ; he should leave it
with the magistrates to do what they thought right. He
had no knowledge of being on trespass, and he did not go
on the ground for that purpose. He thought when Mr.
Knight found out that he had a certificate, he might have
given him his gun and powder and shot back without keep-
ing them a week first.
The Bench said that as this was the first time the defen-
dant had been before them he would be fined half the full
penalty—namely, £l, and 17s. costs, and his license would
now be forfeited.
The defendant paid the money.—Birmingham Post:

THE HARVEST IN FINLAND.--The Finland jour-
nal Suometer estimates at 630,000 souls the population
which is suffering from the effect of the bad harvest in the
Governments of Uleaborg, Knopf°, Wi,45, Tavastehus, and
Saint Michel. Active measures have been adopted by the
Finleald Government to out the neceesitoun inhabitants,