Loome, Appellant, against Baily, Respondent
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 28 November 1860 |
| Date | 28 November 1860 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 121 E.R. 509
IN THE QUEEN'S BENCH.
S. C. 30 L. J. M. C. 31; 3 L. T. 406; 6 Jur. N. S. 1299; 9 W. R. 119. Followed, Cook v. Trevener, [1911], 1 K. B. 11.
[444] loome, Appellant, against baily, Respondent. Wednesday, November 28th, 1860. Stat. 1 & 2 W. 4, c. 32, a. 4, imposes a penalty upon any licensed dealer in game who buys, sells, or knowingly has in his possession or control, any bird of game after the expiration of ten days from the respective days in each year on which it shall become unlawful to kill or take such birds of game respectively: and upon any person not licensed to deal in game, who buys or sells any bird of game after the expiration of the same period, or who knowingly has in his possession or control any bird of game (except birds of game kept in a mew or breeding place) after the expiration of forty days from the respective days on which the season for lawfully killing such birds ends.-Held, that throughout this section the words " birds of game" include live birds ; and that a licensed dealer in game incurs the penalty by selling such birds after the expiration of the ten days specified by the statute. [S. C. 30 L. J. M. C. 31; 3 L. T. 406 ; 6 Jur. N. S. 1299; 9 W. E. 119. Followed, Cook v. Trevener, [1911] 1 K. B. 11.] Case stated by a Metropolitan police magistrate, under stat. 20 & 21 Viet, c. 43. John Baily, the respondent, of 113, Mount Street, Grosvenor Square, in the county of Middlesex, was summoned by the appellant, for that he, on 29th March, 1860, being then and there licensed to deal in game, according to stat. 1 & 2 W. 4, c. 32, s. 19, did then and there unlawfully sell certain birds of game, to wit three pheasants, on the day last aforesaid, such day being after the expiration of ten days from 1st February, 1860; contrary to the 4th section of the said statute; whereby he had forfeited a sum not exceeding 31. The witness in the case stated that he called, on 26th March, 1860, at the shop of the respondent, who was then licensed to deal in game under the 19th section of the said Act; and asked to purchase some live pheasants; that the respondent asked the witness if he: required wild pheasants, and, upon his replying " yes," the respondent sqid he should have to send to Norfolk for them, and the witness must call again on the Thursday following, 29th March. The witness went to the shop on the 29th, and again saw the respondent, who gave him...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kenyon v Hart
...25 relate to game whether alive or dead. [He also referred to sect. 7, Rex v. Marsh (2 B. & C. 717), and Loom?, Appi., Bailey, liespt. (3 E. & E. 444).] [Mellor J. In the recital of sect. 30 the words " for protecting the same from trespassers" refer to "game," not the article for sale. Cro......