Star.
London, England, 1822-01-11 00:00:00

41111 P-
• LAW INTELLIGENCE,

COURT OF RING'S BEACH,JANUART 10.
HAYwoon V. BOUM
This wa a Role obtained by Mr. GURNEY in a for'
trier Te: m, calling upon the plaintiff to shew cause
why the verdict had for him in that case should not be
set aside, and a nunsuit* granted.
It was an action of debt for penalties under a Sta-
tute against the defendant, as an unqualified person
for keeping a sporting dog. The cause was tried at
the IA .t Assizes for Essex, before Mr. Justice 13w!-
Itotton. An opinion given by the Learned Judge on
that occasion was the cause of the Jury finding their
verdict for the plaintiff. His Lordship declared that.
he thought the mere keeping if a sporting dog was
sufficient to b:ing the party within the Statute, and
though he stigmatized the prosecution as an ungia-
cious proceeding, yet he found it.his duty to direct
the Jury t., found their verdict upon the law as it re-
spected the case.
Mr. MARRTATT this day shewed cause against the
Rule, in support of the Learned Judge's opinion 'and

the verdict.
Mr. Justice HOLROTD said, he had a note of a case
bearing upon this question. It was an action tried at
York, Wore Mr. Justice Buller, and was, like this, a
penal action against a Magistrate for keeping a grey-
hound; and it was 'moved, though he kept the dog,
yet it was not for killing. game. It was there con-
tended that the mere keeping was within the Statute,
but that Learned Judge and great law authority held
a•contrary opinion..
The CHM, Junto' said, that 'be had looked into
the case of Rudd v. Phelps, cited by Mr. Gurney from
/5 East. He found there, however, that Lord Ellen-
borough required that the word " keeping" should
be connected with the killing of game.
Mr. MARRYATT admitted that, at the trial, it was
proved that the dog had not been used for the sea-
son preceding ; but for what other purpose than the
killing at game could such dog be kept?
Mr. Justice BAYLZY.— Perhaps for the purpose of

breeding.
CiatEr JUSTICE—It was not left to the Jury to say
whether or not the dog was kept for the destruction
of game. The opinion of the Learned Judge pre-
vented the poc.ibility of such an inquiry. He
. thought, as appears by the report, that the mere
keeping of the dog was sufficient to bring the de-
fendant within the Statute.
Mr. MARRTATT said the Act of Parliament was
silent on the subject of keeping dogs for the destruc-
tion of game.
Mr. Justice BATLEY.—The words "or other engine
to kill or destroy," must apply to the preceding part
of the sentence " keep or use." In all cases you in-
variably allege that the dog was used for the pur-
pose of killing or destroying game, and unless these
words, " keep or use," applied to the preceding clause,
such a clause would be quite unnecessary.
CHIE7 JUSTICE.—If the construction of the Act of
Parliament, for which Mr. Marryatt contends, was
correct, a man who kept a greyhound for the defence
of bib house, or the amusement of his children, would
be liable to the penalty.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY said, that that construction
would be attended with another inconvenience. These
dogs were often made subjects of sale, and if the
" men keeping," 3cc. was within the Act, those per-
sons who got their livelihood by selling dogs would
be subject to penal consequences.
Mr. Justice Best said, that this action being brought
upon a penal Statute, the Court were bound to give
that Statute the most strict construction. There were
two branches in this Statute—the keeping of a dog,
and the using of a dog. There was no doubt but that
the mere keeping of a setting dog was in itself prima
facie evidence that it was for the purpose of killing
game ; but the mistake into which the Learned Judge
fell was, that he supposed such evidence was conclu-
sive. The ltule for a Nonsuit was then made absolute.