of one half being added to that sum, would constitute treble costs.

It has been said, that the action for the recovery of the penalty was introduced because poachers came from London, or from some distant place, to commit an offence, where they had no effects, and when they could not be followed into the country in which they resided and had property. But that has since been remedied, by the 33 Geo. III. c. 55. See ante, 199.

But as the 8 Geo. I. gave a moiety of the penalty to the poor; and as land-owners, who were rated to the poor, could not at that time be witnesses, because they had an interest in the event of the action; it was enacted, by the 2 Geo. III. c. 19. s. 5. that the prosecutor might sue, as before, in his own name, and recover the whole penalty for his own

use.

Section VI. provides that no such action, suit, bill, plaint, or information, shall be brought or exhibited, but within the space of six months after the matter or thing done, for which the same shall be commenced or exhibited, as aforesaid.

The conviction before a magistrate must be inade within three months after the offence.-Rex v.

Tolley,

Tolley, 3 East, 467. By the 8 Geo. I. the action shall be brought before the end of the next term; and by the 2 Geo. III. c. 19. it shall be brought within six months.

This latter statute did not intend to extend the time, in all cases, to six months; but only to limit it to six months, when the end of the next term might be much more than six months, as between the beginning of Trinity Term and the end of Michaelmas Term.

The suing out the latitat, or writ, is the commencement of the action; and the time of the offence, and the commencement of the action, ought to be proved at the trial.

Lee v. Clarke, 2 East, 333. Hardyman v. Whitaker, 2 East, 573.

1

In an action, it is quite clear, that the plaintiff need not prove more than that the defendant kept or used a greyhound, setting-dog, lurcher, net, or engine, for the destruction; the defendant must then prove his qualification.

If the defendant obtain a verdict, he is entitled to his costs.-18 Eliz. c. 5. s. 3.

By

By the same statute, it is enacted, that if the plaintiff compounds any penal action, without the leave of the Court, he shall, upon conviction, stand in the pillory, be incapable of suing again in any penal action, and shall forfeit ten pounds.

Where an action was brought to recover five pounds, against nine persons, for jointly using a greyhound, a verdict was found for the plaintiff against three of the defendants, and a verdict for the six other defendants, upon a motion in arrest of judgment. Judgment was given by the Court in favour of the plaintiff.-Hardyman v. Whitaker, 2 East, 573.

It may be asked, whether an unqualified man can be prosecuted, either by an information before a magistrate, or by an action, for killing Game with a stick I should think it could not be considered an engine. When the proceedings were in Latin, before the year 1731, the word engine was rendered, in Latin, ingenium; from which the words engine, and gin, are clearly derived. But a plain stick, or pole, could not, I think, be considered an ingenium, engine, or contrivance. But if he so killed Game, and took it away, he would be subject to the penalty of five pounds for each head of Game he had in his possession.

CHAP. XIII.

INFORMATION IN THE NATURE OF AN ACTION TO RECOVER PENALTIES UNDER THE GAME LAWS.

THIS mode of prosecution was given by the two last statutes, which introduced an action of debt by the prosecutor.

This proceeding, by information in the Crown Office, is attended by so heavy an expense, that it is only resorted to in order to gratify a rancorous spirit of malice and revenge. It is not adopted for the preservation of Game, but for the vexation and destruction of a fellow-creature. It is every way a disgrace to the laws of England; and the Legislature ought not to permit such a horrid and abominable mode of persecution to remain, another Sessions, a reproach and scandal to the Statute-book.

CHAP.

CHAP. XIV.

TIMES WHEN KILLING GAME IS PERMITTED OR PROHIBITED; AND THE ILLEGAL MODES OF DESTROYING IT.

THE prohibition to kill Game within a certain season extends to all persons, qualified or unqualified. The object was the preservation of the animals, that they might not be destroyed in those seasons during which they are breeding and multiplying their species.

It is something remarkable, that there never has been any prescribed time, within which it was unlawful to kill a hare. It was thought, perhaps, that hunting and coursing, the general legitimate modes of killing a hare, limited themselves by the progress of seed-time and the harvest.

The protection of the crops has also been one cause of fixing the limits. The 23 Eliz. c. 10. therefore imposes a penalty of 40s. upon any one who shall hawk or hunt with spaniels in any ground where the corn is in ear, and before it is put in shocks. The penalty is to be recovered in a Court of Record.

The