The Sun.
London, England, 1809-11-22 00:00:00

LAI!' REPORT.

COURTDF KING 3 BENCH, Nov. zr.
This was a day for special arguments of cases, only
cne of which was interesting to the

VERB V, LORD CAWDER AND ANOTHER.

This WOS an nation for damagel, on account of
rho 11 feridanes gatne-keeper, hav'ing shot and killed
.fte plaintiff's dog. •
The plea was, that-the Defendant, Lord Cawder,
was Lord of a Manor, at Kidtkeily,•::in the county
of Cormatihen, and that the other Defendant wes
.his Lordship's game-keeper; that the plaintiff's dog
canie manor, and was following a hare,
and might then and there have killed the said hare ;.
that the game-keeper shot.the said dog, as' it was
Jawtt:l tor bin) to do. To which plea..thete was- a
demurrer. • I

Lord ELLENBOROUGH, by way of showing: the ab-
surdity or tins plea, ~said—`! I think the p:ea does
not juvify the killing ,O ,the ganieTkeeper ; is it to
be endured thava man's dog; or any. other,aniAnal,
snail be shot, because he follows a hate; without
stating in the jus.itication of • killing that dog it was
necessary to kill' ; or, that,the dog belonged to an
unqualified person, and was. pursuing game unlaw-
fully. Ail this, or some of this..was surely necessary
to be stated."

Mr. SCARLETT quoted several cases-atarralogous
to this plea, and one, frorrithe precedent-•ot winch
this plea had been attua;ly drawn.

Lord. ELLENISOII.OUGII,—" Upon' this plea, the

question is, whether a dog incurs the penalty ot dealt;
for running alter a hare, in the manor of another.
Tins case, upon this plea,''has nothing. to do with
property in game, nor with any right that may be
dc•IE gated by a turd of the manor, or any other 'qu-ali-
m.o person, to a game-keeper ; but it i simpie
ca,e of one anipial routing after another; and the
question is, if a question it can be Called,• whether•
tdeanitual so pursuing another, may legally be itill-
ed„ ,v,ithout stming that the act of killing him Was
tiecessary. If there be a.precedent for such a pli.ta as
this, it is a precedent against common re;tsoning.
and cominon sense, and the sootier it is overturned
the better. It is'a precedent, from %hick' the eyes
of those who are engaged in drawing pit-adings may
properly be,averted. —Judgmedi tor alt. Plainutf.
Mr. PARK moved for .a • mandathus to bedireAlled
to a gentltiszi7an of. the name ot Davis, a -saveyer
appoiniu,i by t:c, authority ot two Acts of Parliament,
to-a6t under certain Commissioners for dividing cer-
t itt lands in Merionethshire, commanding ivlr. Davis
to deliver up certain plans, which he. had drawn by
order of the Ciintuissioners, without which plans it
way alleged that the CoMmissioners' Could-not pro 7,
,-eked in the business of their cuminissinn,-'. Tfi,se
plaits the Commissioners had called upon Mr. Disk
to deliver up, to enable them to act under the 'Novi,-
sions of he -Att of Parliament.
nit Court asked whether Mr. Davis_ had. been-
tendered payment of whatever demand hetay have
for acting as a surveyor iii this ease.?
_ Mr. PARK said, 1T)r;) ; the made in which he.was

to be paid, was not iros.ided for by theAtt of Par-
liaOxiit. No (1061 he ought to,be, and must
be ; but he had not demanded payment,. nor
hod he made the non-payment Of ..,hat demand he
might have, an obie6tion to The delts:ery of these
plat:, but he bad atutdily said,be.'would not give
up the plans.
.",i'mr4;coußT'l2ld, that in no case cf,uld a Man-
danias be grained to 'compel any person to deliver
tip any document in posses ion;
.until a tender
shall,have been made to him: of the- acqount of 11(5'
dernand;-or the service he has rendered in the bu-
siw'ss to which that document relates; for no per-
son be called upon to,part from the lien he has
upon documents in his possession. Therefore ttlicfer
should be Made to this Gentleman, of his demand
for his trouble in this business; and, if after that,'
he refuse to deliver up these-plans, this application
to the Court might be retwwed, and the Court
would attend to it—at present the motion could not
be,grantcd.
. .