THE LAW JOURNAL REPORTS FOR THE YEAR 1878. CASES RELATING TO THE POOR LAW, THE CRIMINAL LAW, CHIEFLY CONNECTED WITH The Duties and Office of Magistrates, PRINCIPALLY DECIDED IN THE QUEEN'S BENCH, COMMON PLEAS, AND EXCHEQUER DIVISIONS, AND IN THE COURT FOR CROWN CASES RESERVED, MICHAELMAS SITTINGS, 1877, TO TRINITY SITTINGS, 1878, BOTH INCLUSIVE. REPORTED In the Court for Crown Cases Reserved, In the Queen's Bench Division, By J. H. ETHERINGTON SMITH, ESQ., AND RICHARD HOLMDEN In the Common Pleas Division, By WILLIAM PATERSON, Esq., AND GILBERT GEORGE KENNEDY, Esq., En the Exchequer Division, By JOHN ROSE, Esq., W. DECIMUS I. FOULKES, ESQ., AND MAGISTRATES' CASES. VOLUME XLVII. LONDON: PRINTED BY SPOTTISWOODE AND CO., NEW-STREET SQUARE. PUBLISHED BY EDWARD BRET INCE, 5, QUALITY COURT, CHANCERY LANE. MDCCCLXXVIII. SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE. CASES RELATING TO THE POOR LAW, THE CRIMINAL LAW, CHIEFLY CONNECTED WITH The Duties and and Office of Magistrates. LAW JOURNAL REPORTS, VOL. XLVII. MICHAELMAS 1877 TO MICHAELMAS 1878. it A pheasant was caught accidentally between the 1st of February and the 1st of October, by a farmer on his own farm, in a wire set for rabbits and not for pheasants, but finding the pheasant in the wire still alive, he, after releasing it and putting on the ground, picked it up and carried it with him. The 1 & 2 Will. 4. c. 32. s. away 3, makes it unlawful "to kill or take any game between the 1st of February and the 1st of October:"-Held, that the catching the pheasant in the wire and the picking it up and carrying it away, was not one continuous act, but that the picking it up and carrying it away constituted a taking" within the statute, but that it was material ・for the justices to consider whether the farmer took the bird away with a view only to restore it to liberty, or with a view to killing or keeping it, in which latter case they ought to convict. 66 CASE stated by justices under 20 & 21 Vict. c. 43. At a Petty Sessions holden at Abergavenny, in the county of Monmouth, on * Coram Cockburn, L.C.J.; Mellor, J.; and Lush, J. VOL. 47.-M.C. Wednesday, the 30th of May, 1877, an information preferred by David Watkins. (hereinafter called the appellant) against James Price (hereinafter called the respondent), under section 3 of 1 & 2 Will. 4. c. 32, charging that the respondent, on the 1st of May, 1877, at the parish of Cwmyoy, in the said county (the same day being between the 1st of February and the 1st of October) unlawfully did take one pheasant there, contrary to the form of the statute, was heard and determined by us. At the hearing of the said information, we dismissed the charge against the respondent, without costs. By section 3 of 1 & 2 Will. 4. c. 32, so far as is material to this case, it is enacted, "That if any person whatsoever shall kill or take any pheasant between the 1st of February and the 1st of October in any year, every such person shall on conviction of any such offence before two justices of the peace, forfeit and pay for every head of game so killed or taken, such sum of money, not exceeding one pound, as to the said justices shall seem meet, together with the costs of the conviction. Section 2 of the said Act, 1 & 2 Will. 4. c. 32, so far as material to this case, enacts, that the word " "shall for all the purgame poses of this Act be deemed to include pheasants. Upon the hearing of the said informa B |