Star.
London, England, 1801-10-05 00:00:00

TORY:IT LAWI-SCARCE V. SMITH.

This was an Action for killing a greyhound, the
property of the Plaintiff. The laterendant pleaded
tint, that he was not guilty; and, fecondly, that
he was keeper of a certain ancient park called
Harftmonfeaux Park, and that he killed .the Plain-
tiff's dog for hunting down the deer.
Mr. GARROW faid, that this action was one which
would not fail deeply to interell all who were ac-
tuated by the haft fenriment of good nature and
affection towards the brute creation, and particu-
larly that moll faithful of all animals, the dog. He
knew leading that was more calculated to wound
the feedings, and excite the regret of any man, than
in have a valuable and trufty dog deftroyed. The
Defendant might be a Gamekeeper, and jnflified
la killing the dogs he found hunting deer, but in
the prefent inflame it would-be proved, from the
exprelbons of the Defendant, after he had com-
mitted this ad of malice, that it was not on AC-
COMM of the animal having hunted the deer he
(hot him. 'lt would be neceitary to attend to the
fpeties of the dog in quellion. • It was a white
greyhound, and every one knew that dogs of that
breed never put up the game of themfelves, hut
only hunted it down when they were let on. The
defence was, that this dog was hunting, and it
wood be for the Defendant to make out that
for, for the Law of England did not autho.
rise every fancy Gamekeeper to kill all the
dfts that went through the Park, of which be
had the colhady, etpecially filch a Park as this, '
through which there was a common path for all
who pleated to pars; although the Defendant had
had the affurance to fay this dog was hunting, he,
at the fame time, perfeetly well knew it was not
leer, but gime of a different kind it von purfuing.
U was necerary to obterve, that the Plaintiff's was
a male dog; and that the fon of the Defendant
had a little greyhound of the other fez. This ani•
anal had wolf the affections of the white greyhound,
and the was the obje& for which he retorted to the
Park. It would be for the Jury to infer how the
two greyhounds were employed, when they confi-
dered. the expreffions tired by the Defendant to a
patron whom he informed of the circinnllance.-•
exprelLons which any man who had a drop of
Englifh blood alxint him, would have been afhamed
to have ufed : he obfeeved, he had tickled one al
them, and that he had had a very good chance of
kilUng both, but that he took good aim. He fhould
prove there fads on the part of the Plaintiff, and it
would then be for the Defendant to make out his
jollification. He repeated, that the dog certainly
was one which would have killed game, but it had
no talk for doing fet unlefs let on.
Joreph Parks Lid, that on Saturday April 2d,
be was in the neighbourhood of this Park, he faw
a little lnrcher bitch belonging to the Defendant's
fon, and (hardy after a ftrange white greyhound,
which he fine learnt had belonged to the Plain
tiff, come tip to her. In a few minutes he heard
the report of a gun, and perceived the white grey-
hound woundel Immediately after this he law
Smith !landing with his gun, and :Weed him whe-
ther he had (ten any dogs in the Park ? to which
he replied boha..l. The witnefs edited him whether
be had not Ihot at them ? and he anfwered, that: he
had helped one .of them to fomething that had
tickled him. The Witnefs then defired to know
which dog he had (hot, and he raid it was the white
greyhound; and added, that they Were both a dead
mark, and he bad a pretty opportunity of (hooting
them together. On his eras-examination he'fiud,
be did not know the Defendant was Mr. Nailtir's
Park•keeper : this affair was after the Defendant'
had taken the gun, andnot from him (the witnefs).
The Defendant did not tell him he had Peen two,;
lurchers chafing the deer.
Mr. Serieant SHEPHERD laid, his learned Friend
feemed to have made it the foundation of this ac-
tion, that the Defendant had boafted of having
wantonly killed the Plaintiff's dog, which was by
no means the fad. The tare was tltis,the Defendant
was Park-keeper to M. Nailor. the proprietor. of
Hurßitionfea x Park, who, in the entitle of the fall
year and, a half, had had five of his deer worried •
by the dogs of his neighbour hood, and if he was not
allowed to kill them, his property could never be
fecure. His learned Friend had Rated, that grey-
hounds world not hunt math they were let on;
perhaps this Might be trite with regard to (launch j
dogs, butt it was well known that all dogs of what- •
ever breCel they were had a taße for mutton ; and
it was fair to prefome they had no objeCtion to re-
nifon if they could get it. He agreed that it was
improper for Park.kcepers to fhoof at dogs merely
bTeanle they came within a park; nay, further, he
did not thick they were jultified in doing lb, even,
it they were chafing the deer, provided a perfon
was with them who could call them off; but in this
cafe the Defendant's dog had been chafing the deer
without any one to restrain it; and if it had not
been teen by the Park-keeper, would certainly have
hunted tome of them down and killed them. He
feared he Raoul,' have fomedil iculty in proving this,
as the Defendant had alone oliferved them, and
could not give teftimony in his own behalf. It was
a cis curnflance rather futpicious, that the only wit-
nefs the Plaintiff had aled, was a man who, for
poaching in the Park lately, had his gun and a
net tahen from hint. If it had been denied that
this place was an atcicnt Park, he fhould have
proved it beyond all question ; but as that was ad
mitted.he fhoold prove a general notice on the paint
of Mr. ntilor, that as feveral of his deer had la. en
wor: ie.1,1), would order LI.. garnedc,:eper to thootall
the g. hi pound iu his l'ai I . It I..ippco.:(l there
ooldn..innc.trthellif ~t %di.) art! t
of tn.. ; .tad, ninon ittcptirit,,; the cattle, was in•
tot toed by the Defendaat, Lz liad !Lot a dog as he
vas hut:titiit the deer. It V.' as admitted that one of
the dogs was a Luther, and it could not he d hied
that dt;;I that kind ~would. hunt the feelit as
well as the iirltt. rf hr proved the facts he had flat.
!tt thutti;ht ts::c defendant was intitled to a
a. 'did.

lizr, the I% imer, tLe part of the
I.kil.rdArtt, (Aid, ht dogs, Lot chd not oh-
hie th‘m v.-a..deri.g at all, or hooting the ricer

lie heard the report of therm, and caw the (mole
but no fuch cooverfation as had been mentioned
took place between him and the Defendant.
Lord KENYON Lid, the Plaintiff had a right to
maintain this a'etion—at the fame time be.dtd not
think k was a cafe which called for inflamed r /a-
mages. It was a very vexations thin/Tor a Gentle-
man to have his deer killed. Whether a man had,
at the,prcfent day, a right to kill the dog of ano-
ther chafing his deer, he would not fay; but, cer-
tainly, by the Foreft Laws, GaEri?kweepers were
juflified in !hooting all dogs found within a park,
unlefs they were expeditated, that is, had the
balls of their feet cut out, to prevent' icm from
running. • Happily the Foreft Laws were no longer
in ufe, yet the laws enaCled, fince the Revolution,
were equally adapted to the proteelio of private
property in game, as thofe which flourilhed under
the Plantagenet% and certainly they were More
congenial to the liberty of the fubje& He believed
no one would regret the difufe of the Foreft Laws.
If a Gamekeeper, prefuming upon his right,
thought proper to let fly and killed the dog of
another, he was anfwerable for the confequences.
The Jury were bound to give a verdict for the
Plaintiff, limiting the damages to the reafonable
value of the clog.-•Verdia for the Plaintiff. Da-
' mages Two Guineas.