1st. Owners respect of their forests, &c. to kill game within their franchise. of forests, park, chases, and lords of manors, With respect to lords of manors, it was expressly provided by the 2 J. 1. c. 27. s. 6. (t) that every lord of a manor may, by himself or his menial servants, take pheasants or partridges on his manor. But lords of manors not being men tioned in the excepting clause of the Stat. of C. 2. which requires a qualification of 1007. a year, and the right of a lord of a manor not being recognized in express terms by the 5 Ann. c. 14. or 9 Ann. c. 25. which give him a power to appoint a gamekeeper to kill game, it was doubted whether he, merely as lord of a manor, aud without having an interest in the land of 1007. per ann. is qualified to kill game. However in the case of Mallock v. Eastley (u) the Court appear to have considered, that a person merely as lord of a manor is qualified to kill game within it. It was argued that every lord of a manor was qualified to kill game, for that, as by the abovementioned statutes he may authorize a gamekeeper to kill game and seize guns, it would be absurd to say that the lord of a manor has not such power himself, for it would be degrading him below the privileges of his servant. And Willes, Ch. J. said, "I have some doubt whether defendant, as (1) Post, Appendix, 424. 1 Burr. 148. post, Appen. dix,1111.1115.—The Queen v. Matthews, 10 Mod. 26.Post, Appendix, 1010. It seems a little lord of a manor simply, is not qualified to kill 1st. Owners game within his own manor. odd that the servant of a lord of a manor may kill game, and yet the lord himself not do it without being punished by a penalty." And Abney, J. said that lords of manors have not a general qualification to kill game every where, but are stinted and confined to the precincts of their own manors. And Burnet, J. was of opinion that the lord of a manor is entitled to kil game within his manor, as well as his gamekeeper, yet he thought he would be liable to the penalty if he used a gun to destroy game out of the boundaries of his manor. And it may now be considered as settled, that every person who is lord of a manor is qualified, as such, to sport within his manor, but if he have no other qualification he will be liable to the same penalties as any other unqualified person, if he sport out of his manor. of forests, parks, chases, and lords of manors. A qualification, or rather an authority, to kill Gamekeeper. game is given to a gamekeeper appointed by the lord or lady of a manor, or other royalty. The Stat. 7 J.1. c. 11. s. 7. authorizes a person, having free warren, and a lord of a manor, and freeholder of 401. per ann. to appoint his menial or household servant to kill pheasants and partridges in the day-time, upon his master's free warren, manor, and freehold. The Stat. 22 and 23 C. 2. c. 25. s. 2. (v) authorized lords of manors or (v) See the statement of this and the subsequent act, as Gamekeeper. Other royalties, not under the degree of an esquire, by writing under their hands and seals, to appoint one or more gamekeepers within their respective manors or royalties. But as gamekeepers, thus appointed, had merely a power to preserve game, it was provided by 5 Ann. c. 14. that any lord or lady of his or her respective lordship or manor, may empower their gamekeeper upon their lordship or manors to kill hares, pheasants, partridge, or other game for the use of such lord or lady only; but the Statute 9 Ann. c. 25. reciting that the appointment of several gamekeepers tends to the destruction of the game, enacts that only one gamekeeper shall be appointed to kill game within any one manor, and that the name of such gamekeeper shall be entered with the clerk of the peace of the county, riding, or division wherein the manor lies, and the clerk of the peace shall for 1s. give him a certificate of such entry; and if his name is not so entered he is then liable, as if he had not been appointed gamekeeper, unless he be otherwise qualified in his own right. By the 3 Geo. 1. c. 11. (w) it was enacted, that the lord of a manor should not appoint any one to kill game, unless he was qualified in his own right, or be really the servant of the lord, and employed to kill game for his sole use. But this statute was repealed by 48 G. 3. c. 93. (x) by to gamekeepers, in Rogers v. (w) Post, Appendix, 504. (x) Post, Appendix, 691. which any lord or lady of any manor is em- Gamekeeper. powered to appoint any person whatever, whe ther qualified or not, to be gamekeeper to his manor, and to kill game there for the use of any person, but it, is to be specified in the deputation whether qualified or not, and such person is invested with all the privileges of a gamekeeper appointed under former acts. The Stat. 48 G. 3. c. 55. s. 9. (y) which relates to the certificate, enacts that no gamekeeper shall thereby be enabled to use any dog or engine out of the precincts of the manor or royalty, for which such deputation was granted. We have already considered what is a lawful What manor or royalty manor, with reference to the game laws. The sufficient. Statute 22 and 23 C. 2. c. 25. s. 2. besides manors, mentions "other royalties." So that under that statute the owner of a free warren or other royalty has undoubtedly a right to appoint a gamekeeper to preserve game (z). But the 5 Ann. c. 14. s. 4. which introduces the power to appoint a gamekeeper to kill game, only mentions lordship, or manor; and the 9 Ann. c. 25. and the subsequeut acts merely mention manors, with respect to the appointment of gamekeepers. It has been held (a), that the lord of a hundred, or wapentake cannot grant a deputation to a game (y) Post Appendix, 684. (z) See Appendix, 1175. (a) Ld. Aylesbury v. Pattisou, Dougl. 28.-Post, Appendix, 1172.-In Com. Dig. tit. Justice of Peace, B. 46. or royalty. sufficient. the meaning of these statutes. What manor keeper, a wapentake not being a royalty within And Lord Mansfield there said, "that all acts in pari materiâ are to be taken together, as if they were one law. In the Statute C. 2. the words, other royalties,' are used, but that must mean royalties of the same nature with manors; if royalties of a higher nature had been meant the statute would have begun with them; the reason why this word was used in the Act of C. 2. was, because such royalties go by different names in different parts of the kingdom, as honours, baronies, fees, &c.; but in the Act 5 Ann. c. 14. the words are only lordship or manor; and the Acts of 9 Ann. and 3 Geo. 1. recite the others, and only mention lords and ladies of manors." It is observable that by the 7 J. 1. c. 11. s. 7. owners of free warrens are authorized to appoint their menial servants to kill game on their own free warrens, and that owners of warrens are mentioned in the preamble of the 22 and 23 C. 2. c. 25. and in Keeble v. Hickringill (a) the Court are reported to have said, that the word royalty signifies a free warren. Hence it should seem, that the owner of a free warren is authorized to appoint a gamekeeper to kill game within his franchise. What title to the manor necessary. Where a person has a colourable title to a manor or lordship, he may under these statutes appoint a gamekeeper to kill game, and the court will not suffer an inquiry into his title in an action (a) 11 Mod. 74.-Post, Appendix, 1006. |