Symud i'r prif gynnwys
Cuddio Rhestr Erthyglau

23 erthygl ar y dudalen hon

IAbout the WortS.

" (ScfUsiitstiaL

[No title]

fittttra1.

[No title]

^ THE WATERLOO COURSING MKETIPT&.

I RACING FIXTURES. - ... -..--

1glgrirottel.

[No title]

THE IRISH LAND BILL.

THE EDUCATION BILL.

OPINIONS OF TEE PRESS.

[No title]

THE LONDON AND NORTH-WESTERN…

GREAT SHEEP AND CATTLE SALE…

FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE.

FRANCE.

THE CAPE.

AUSTRALIA. ^ ^ n

[No title]

--gipp a gaft ftth.

. AN INTERESTING CASE.-GAME…

Newyddion
Dyfynnu
Rhannu

AN INTERESTING CASE.-GAME AND < CARRIERS. /.The case of Jones v. Dicker has come on1 in the Queen's Bench, before Justices Lush and Hannen. It was an appeal to! the above court from a decision of Jas. Maurice R. G. Johnson, and Gabriel Roberts, -Esqrs., justices of the peace, at Ruthin, whereby they had convicted the appellant in a penalty of £ 5 under the Game Poaching Prevention Act. The appellant, Jones, is-a carrier at t c Bettws Gwerfil Goch, in the county of Merioneth, and on the 19th of November, 1867, was proceeding as usual on market days to Ruthin, and when near Ruthin was stopped and his cart searched by Sergt. Dicker and another police- man. In reply to their enquiry he said he had no game. The police, however, searched the cart and found some pheasants, partridges, and hares under some rabbits in a basket covered over with a cloth. Mr Marcus Louis was for the prosecution, and Mr O. Davies Hughes for the defence. The only evidence for the prosecution was the possession of the game, and that the defendant's boots were dirty whilst the road was dry. For the defence a witness was called, who proved that the defendant, as common carrier, had to take baskets of merchandise to and from Ruthin for his customers, and was expected not to pry into their contents and that the basket in question was in the cart when defendant started in the morning, in the county of Merioneth. It was contended by the defendant's advocate that a carrier was not bound to state from whom he had obtained the game that possession alone was not sufficient under the Act and that the offence, if any, was complete in the county of Merioneth, and without the jurisdiction of the justices for Denbighshire. The defendant was convicted in the penalty of 25, whereupon a case was granted him for the opinion of this Court. On the 14th instant the case was argued. Mr Morgan Lloyd, instructed by Mr O. Davies Hughes, appeared for the appellant (Jones), and argued—1st. That the information did not charge any offence punish- able by fine under the 2nd section of the 25 and 26 Vic., c. 114. The statute gave power to the constables to search: persons on suspicion and take them before justices, but the only offence over which the justices had jurisdiction was that of being on land in pursuit of game, or using in- struments found upon the person charged for such a purpose, or being accessary to either. 2nd. There was no evidence upon which the magistrates were justified in finding that the appellant had been on land for the purpose of taking game, or that he had any instruments in his pos- session. He was a common carrier, and the natural inference was that he was carrying the game for somebody else. It was immaterial whether the game had been poached or not, so long as it was not proved that the ap- pellant had poached it. Even if he knowingly carried the game to market for a poacher, that would not render him liable to conviction under that statute. 3rd. There was. no evidence of an offence committed in Denbighshire, Mr Horatio Lloyd, instructed by Mr Marcus Louis, for the respondent, said the first point was not open to the appellant, as it did not come within any of the questions asked in the case and if the information was wrong, the appellant might apply to quash it. As to the second point, there was evidence that the game had been recently killed, and the appellant's boots were wet and dirty-the road being dry. Mr Justice Lush—I am of opinion that this conviction is wrong. It is not necessary for us to consider the first. point, as we are satisfied that there was no evidence that the appellant was coming from any land on which he had been for the purpose of killing game. All the facts stated are consistent with the supposition that he was carrying the game for some poacher. Mr Justice Hannen—The strongest piece of evidence against him is the dirty boots, but that is not enough. Judgment for the appellant, with costs.

Advertising