The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1878-12-11

the proper and sole Judge OF that. He is
quite MS likely to Judge rightly rs we are to
Judge for him. At all events. the law has made
him. and not us. tho Judge. and we cannot in
terfere with him I'm his honest exercise OF the
jurisdiction which tho law has confdcd to him."
The appeal Of Mrs. Agar Ellis was therefore
unsuccessful. and during the remaining years
Of the children's minorites tho whole RESPONSE
bility OF their religious education Is thrown
upon their father. The moral sought by some
to be deduced from the case is that these mixed
marriages ought to DO discouraged by Prot
estant and Roman Catholic parents alike.
The Queens Bench Division. at sitting
IN Jdnc. before Lord Coleridge and Mr. Justice
Mellor has decided that there IL no common
law right emitting fox hunters to pass over
land in fresh pursuit Of fox. The appeal
came up in this way: Some gentlemen. while
hunting with the Vale Of Taunton hounds. in
Somcrsetshire, tried to cross tho field OF a
farmer named Summcrhayes. His son warned
them off. and turned back Mr.. Paul's horse.
Mr. Paul urged his horse forward. Summer
hayes again put 1t back. Then Mr.. Paul re-
sisted. Summerhayes took up stone. Mr..
Paul got of his horse. and strove to take 1t
away. and struggle ensued. Another OF tho
gentlemen said: II you throw that stone. I'll
knock you down" The young farmer caught
hold Of the horses Bride and the gentleman
struck him twice with his whip. Summcrhayes
complained and the magistrates convicted tho
fox hunters. and imposed small fine. from
which conviction the appeal was taken.
Mr.. Cole. .. O.. contended that the chase Of
the fox was a lawful justification for entering
upon any land. He cited an old case in Pop
hams Reports. in the reign of Elizabeth. that II
was lawful to go on land in pursuit Of the fox.
" for the fox is n noisomc beast. so that his de-
struction is beneficial to the public" Mr. jus
tlce Mellor observed that the justification was
not put on very sportsmanlko ground. that
the fox was n noisomc beast and the object was
to Kill him as soon as possible The modern
idea ia that the pleasure of the hunt is the OBJ
iect. He remembered tho case OF II member Of
Parliament who had the misfortune of having
"a fox killed on his land. and who was forced to
have kind OF inquest held on the body Of the
animal to satisfy his nelghbors that he was no
party to the act. or he would certainly have lost
his seat. Mr. Charles. .. C.. who appeared for
Summcrhaycs. cited the case in which the Earl
Of Essex sued tho Rev. Mr., Capel. In 1909. for
hunting in Glastonbury Park. and Lord Ellen
borough decided that those who hunt are not
entitled to 20 over the lands of other persons.
Lord Coleridge. with whom his colleague
concurred then pronounced judgment affirm
ing the conviction for the assault He was Of
opinion that the prosecutor was justified In re-
sistng the defendants entry on the field. Fox
hunting is we'll entitled TO the enthusiasm It
eN'ites among those who enjoy IL but II must
Doe carried on in subordination to the general
rights Of mankind and tho ordinary laws OF
property one ~ which Is thar no one II entitled
10 go on the land Of another without his leave
and against his will. There Is nothing to JUS
tify n field of fox hunters in riding over the
field Of farmer against his will. II they per
sist they are trcspasscrs and N he res lists them
and they assault him. they are without any
legal Justification. II r. not q little singular
that after 80 MANY years Of fox hunting. this
question Of law should have como now before
nm appellate court In England for the first time.