manner as aforesaid; such discoverer to be discharged of the pains and penalty hereby enacted, for killing or selling such Game as aforesaid; and he shall receive the same benefit or advantage as any other informer shall be entitled to, by virtue of this Act, for such discovery and information."

It does not appear that there was any decision upon this statute before the law respecting the possession of Game, and buying and selling it, was much extended by the 9 Ann. c. 25.

"That if a

The 5 Ann. c. 14. s. 4. enacts, game-keeper shall sell and dispose of Game, without the consent or knowledge of the lord or lady of the manor, he shall be committed to the house of correction for three months.

But this is repealed by the next statute, the 9 Ann. c. 25. s. 1. which punishes game-keepers selling Game with the same penalty as higglers. These are the words of the statute in section 1. "If any game-keeper or game-keepers, or other person or persons whatsoever, not being qualified in his own right to kill Game, shall sell or expose to sale any hare, pheasant, partridge, moor, heath-game, or grouse, the respective offender or offenders herein shall, for every offence, incur such forfeiture,

pains, and penalties, as are inflicted by the said recited Act upon higglers, carriers, innkeepers, or victuallers, for buying or selling of Game; such forfeiture to be recovered by such means, and in such manner and form, and within such time, and to such uses, as are prescribed by the said Act; any thing in the said recited Act, or in any other law or statute, to the contrary thereof in any wise notwithstanding."

That statute then in section 2. introduces the general prohibition for an unqualified man to have Game in his possession, unless he is entitled by a qualified man.

Section II." And be it further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, that if any hare, pheasant, partridge, moor, heath-game, or grouse, shall be found in the shop, house, or possession, of any person or persons whatsoever, not qualified in his own right to kill Game, or being entitled thereto under some person so qualified; the same shall be adjudged, deemed, and taken to be an exposing thereof to sale within the true intent and meaning of this and the said recited Act; any thing in this or in the said recited Act contained to the contrary thereof in any wise notwithstanding."

A poulterer, who was qualified by estate to kill Game, had sold a hare in his shop; and having had an action brought against him for the penalty of 51. for having sold Game as a chapman under the 5 Ann. c. 14. Chief Justice Ryder, and the Court of King's Bench, held that he was not a chapman, and that no qualified man was subject to the penalties under that statute for selling or exposing to sale.Kearle v. Boulter, Sayer's Rep. 191.

This decision produced the statute 28 Geo. II. c. 12. It states in the preamble, doubts had arisen with respect to the word chapman : it then enacts, "That if any person or persons whatsoever, whether qualified or not qualified to kill Game, shall sell, expose or offer to sale, any hare, pheasant, partridge, moor, heath-game, or grouse, every such person or persons shall, for every such offence, be subject and liable to the same forfeiture, pains, and penalties, as are inflicted by the said recited Act upon higglers, chapmen, carriers, innkeepers, victuallers, or alehouse-keepers, for buying, selling, or offering of Game to sale.

"II. And be it further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, that if any hare, pheasant, partridge, moor, heath-game, or grouse, shall be found in the shop,

house,

house, or possession of any poulterer, salesman, fish-monger, cook, or pastry-cook, the same shall be adjudged, deemed, and taken to be an exposing thereof to sale within the true intent and meaning of this Act, and the said recited Act, or any other act; which said forfeitures shall be recovered, and such penalties inflicted, by such means, and in such manner, and from and within such time, and shall be applied to such uses, as are prescribed by the said recited Act, or by any other act or acts since made for the preservation of the Game; any thing in the said recited Act, or any other law or statute, to the contrary thereof in any wise notwithstanding."

It clearly follows from these statutes, that there is no penalty upon a qualified man for buying Game.-Though he may be guilty of a great moral offence in encouraging another to violate the laws of his country, yet those laws have imposed no punishment or penalty upon him. See Observations upon this, in the Chapter upon suggested Improvements upon the Game Laws.

By the 9 Ann. c. 25. if an unqualified man hás any head of Game in his possession not entitled by a qualified man, it is declared to be an exposing it to sale.

And the penalty of 57. may be recovered for every head of Game, either before a justice of the peace or in an action. But the jury may give fewer penalties than the plaintiff states the number of hares, pheasants, &c. in his declaration.-Bluet v. Reeds, 2 Comyns's Rep. 522.

In the same case it was decided, that the plaintiff might recover several penalties for a gun, on different days, and also for exposing to sale so many head of Game, specifying the number of hares, partridges, &c.; and that in an action it was not necessary in the declaration to negative all the qualifications, as in a conviction.-Ibid.

The action or conviction may state, either that the defendant exposed a hare to sale, or had a hare in his possession.-Jones v. Bishop, Sayer's Rep. 64.

An unqualified man may clearly have Game in his possession, if entitled by a qualified man. He may, therefore, receive a present of Game from a qualified man, and may consume them in his own. family...

But it has been held, if Game is killed by accident, that an unqualified man will be subject

to