Page images
PDF
EPUB

consisting in the lord's right to hold a court for the administration of justice; which is a part of the King's prerogative, that must have been originally derived from the Crown.

Lords as to

Game.

Loisel, Inst.

Lib. 2. Tit. 2. § 51.

42. Whenever the King granted a tract of land to Rights of the a subject, with a jurisdiction, a right of hunting over it followed as a regular consequence, and as appurtenant to the royalty, in conformity to the practice. then existing upon the Continent; for, by the customary law of France, every person who had a fief had a right of hunting over the lands comprised within it. And it appears, from the following case, that every lord of a manor in England had, and still has, a right of sporting over it. 43. In a prosecution for a penalty under the game Mallock v. Eastly, laws, the case was, that a person who was lord of a 7 Mod. Rep. manor, of which the demesnes were leased out for 99 482. years, at a rent of 157., killed a pheasant out of his manor; and it was contended for the plaintiff, that the defendant had not a qualification of 1007. a year, and was therefore liable to a penalty.

Serjeant Eyre, for the defendant, said, that every lord of a manor was qualified to kill game. The proprietors of manors generally were barons, and the manor itself composed of demesnes and a court baron. In modern times, indeed, several persons had manors without any lands; the demesnes having been sold, and disannexed. But the property of a manor, dismembered of its rents and services, was still considered as a royalty or jurisdiction, so favoured, as to entitle its master to many privileges; and among the rest, to that of killing game. That by the stat. 22 & 23 Cha. II. c. 25., reciting, that divers disorderly persons betook themselves to destroying game, to the prejudice of noblemen, gentlemen, and lords of

manors, it is enacted, that all lords of manors or other royalties, not under the degree of an esquire, may authorize gamekeepers, within their royalties or manors, to seize all guns, &c. for the killing of game within the precincts of such manors, &c.

That if, by this statute, lords of manors might authorize gamekeepers to kill game,* and to seise guns, &c., it would be absurd to say, that the lord of the manor had not such power himself; for it would be degrading him below the privileges of his servant. And why did the statute authorise lords to make gamekeepers to preserve the game, unless they themselves had an interest in it, and power to take and destroy it, and seize the guns of unqualified persons. But it was clear and settled that they might carry

guns and kill game within their respective manors.

Lord Ch. J. Willis said, if the defendant was not qualified as being a lord of a manor, he certainly was not so by his estate. But he had some doubt whether the defendant, as lord of the manor simply, was not qualified to kill game within his own manor. seemed a little odd, that the servant of the lord of a manor might kill game, and yet the lord himself not do it, without being punished by a penalty.

It

Mr. Just. Abney said, there were three qualifications in force; one of which every man must have, to be entitled to kill game. The first was of lords of manors, who have not a general qualification to kill game every where, but are confined to the precincts

* This is a mistake of the reporter; but the statute 5 Anne, c. 14. § 4., which the Serjeant probably cited, enacts, that lords and ladies of manors may empower gainekeepers upon their own manors to kill hare, pheasant, or partridge, or any other game, for the use of such lord or lady only.

The

of their own manors; so that it should be considered whether the defendant had not incurred the penalty, as he killed the pheasant out of his manor. second sort of persons were those who had titles, as esquires, &c. These were qualified to kill game, whether they were possessed of lands or not. The third sort were persons having estates. And he was quite satisfied that the estate of the defendant would not qualify him.

Mr. Just. Bennett was clear that the estate was no qualification, but had some doubt as to the other point. For though he imagined that the lord of a manor was entitled to kill 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 the game, out of the boundaries of his manor.

No judgement was given; but it appears quite clear, from the reasoning of the Judges, that if the defendant had killed the pheasant on his own manor, the Court would have held that he was not liable to the penalty, notwithstanding his want of a qualification of property.

44. The lord's right of killing game being part of his royalty, must originally have extended over all the lands comprised within the manor. But we find it established in the reign of Queen Anne, that a lord 11 Mod. 74. of a manor could not enter upon the freehold estate of another, though situated within the bounds of his manor, for the for the purpose of sporting.

* There are some other acts of parliament which recognize the rights of lords of manors to the game. Vide 23 Eliz. c. 10. § 2. 4 & 5 William and Mary, c. 23. § 4.

[blocks in formation]

45. The lord of a manor may erect a dove-cote de novo on his land, being parcel of the manor, and store it with pigeons.

46. There are a variety of other franchises usually annexed to manors: the principal of which are, the right to hold a court leet; and to have waifs, wrecks, estrays, treasure trove, royal fish, goods of felons, and deodands: all which were originally granted by the Crown to the persons entitled to those manors; and became appendant to them.

47. A court leet is a court of record, having the same jurisdiction, within some particular precinct, which the sheriff's tourn has in the county. It is not necessarily incident to a manor, like a court baron; but is derived from the sheriff's tourn, being a grant from the Crown to certain lords of manors, for the ease of their tenants, that they might administer justice to them at home.

48. To every court leet is annexed the view of frankpledge; which means the examination or survey of the frankpledges, of which every man, not particularly privileged, was antiently obliged to have nine, who were bound that he should always be forthcoming, to answer any complaint.

49. Waifs are goods which have been stolen and waived; or left by the felon on his being pursued, for fear of apprehension. Thus, if a felon who is pursued waives the goods; or thinking that he is pursued, flies away, and leaves the goods behind him; the King's officer, or the bailiff of the lord of the manor, who has the franchise of waif, may seize the goods, to the King's or the lord's use, and keep them: unless the owner makes a fresh pursuit after the felon, and sues an appeal of robbery, within a year

and a day; or gives evidence against him, whereby he is attainted, &c.; in which case the owner shall have restitution of his goods so stolen and waived.

50. The reason that waifs are forfeited, and that 5 Rep. 109. the person from whom they were stolen shall lose his property in them, is on account of his default in not making fresh suit, to apprehend the felon ; for which the law has imposed this penalty on the

owner.

51. Though waif is generally spoken of goods stolen, yet, if a person be pursued with hue and cry as a felon, and he flies and leaves his own goods, these will be forfeited as goods stolen. But they are properly fugitive's goods, and not forfeited till it be found before the coroner, or otherwise by record, 3 Hawk. that he fled for the felony.

P.C.450.

52. If the thief had not the goods in his pos- 5 Rep. 109 a. session when he fled, there is no forfeiture: for if a felon steals goods, hides them, and afterwards flies, there is no forfeiture. So where he leaves stolen goods any where, with an intent to fetch them at another time, they are not waived. And in these cases, the owner may take his goods where he finds them.

Cro. Eliz.

694.

Case,

53. Wreck signifies such goods as, after a ship has Wreck. been lost, are cast upon the land; for they are not Constable's wrecks as long as they remain at sea, within the 5 Rep. 106. jurisdiction of the Admiralty. And by the statute

of Westminster the first, 3 Edw. I. c. 4. it is enacted, 2 Inst. 166. that when a man, or any living creature, escapes alive

out of a ship that is cast away, whereby the owner

of the goods may be known, the ship or goods shall not be a wreck.

54. If a ship is pursued by an enemy, and the Idem, 167. mariners come ashore, leaving the ship empty, and

« PreviousContinue »