THE GAME LAWS IN ENGLAND.

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume 18, Issue 1086, 4 August 1871, Page 2

THE GAME LAWS IN ENGLAND.

Asr almost incredible number of cases under the Game Laws come annually before English magistrates. Objectionable as these antiquated specimens of legislation are, their administration is often even worse. The following instance, related by a correspondent of the Daily News, will remind our readers of an old proverb concerning " looking over a hedge " : " At Melbourn (Cambridgeshire) Petty Sessions, on the Ist May, Robert Clark,, of S waff ham, was brought up. on a warrant, charged with having on theday before, viz., Sunday—during churchtime—trespassed, with dog, in search of game, on Earl Hardwicke's property, at Wimpole. The prisoner (with three other coprolite diggers) was seen by the Earl'a head gamekeeper strolling on the road, a small terrier with them, which was quiteinnocent of poaching capacities. Clark walked close by the hedgeside, and, according to the keeper's evidence, kicked some of the bushes ; but this was denied. The keeper also asserted, and it was not denied, that the dog went through the hedge into the field, and Clark stepped upon the bank and looked over the hedge after the dog. The accused lad mentioned the fact that the dog did not belong to him, or either of his companions ; he also said be had no intention of taking game, and it was admitted the dog was not in pursuit of any. The keeper was the only witness examined. The magistrate's clerk asked the prisoner if he stepped upon the bank, and he said " "Xes.'* This admission was construed into a plea of guilty, and without inquiry into the; antecedents of prisoner he was sentenced to two months' imprisonment, or to pay fine and costs ,£2 12s, the whole proceedings occupying only a minute or two.. Time for payment was asked, but not allowed, aud in default Clark was sent toprison. Application was subsequently made for copy of depositions or notes of evidence, but the answer returned was that as defendant confessed the offence no depositions or notes of evidence were taken. My correspondent, after having satisfied himself that Robert Clark was not even guilty of the crime of poaching, nor had ever been previously convicted of any offence, paid the fine and liberated the prisoner after two days' incarceration. In addition to the <£2 12s he had to pay 8s 9d for conveyance of prisoner from Melbourn to Cambridge, although Clark walked the whole distance —10 miles. I don't think that the charge of M glorious uncertainty " can fairly be applied to the law as administered by game preserving magistrates against poachers, real or imaginary. Heaven knows it is certain and sharp enough 1 "