case, also, the property is gone when they escape. 7 Co. 16. 3 Lev. 227. March 49.—And with respect to the pursuit of animals, at common law, these observations are to be made: 1. That if a man pursues deer, hares, or conies, out of his land, or the lands of another, into mine, and there takes them, they are the hunter’s, and not mine; because I never had any original property by inclosing them. 2 Bac. Abr. 613.—But it is said, if a man flies his hawk at a pheasant in his own ground, and the hawk pursues the pheasant into another’s warren, the owner of the hawk cannot justify entering the warren, and taking the pheasant.—Id.
2. If a man hunts conies in my ground, and kills them there, I may seize them, because they are indeed my property by the inclosure; but if he hunts them out of my ground, they are in the condition of natural liberty.—Id.
3. But where a man hunts conies out of a warren, or deer out of a park, and the warrener or parker pursues them, he may retake them; for the park and warren are legal establishments, erected for the purpose of keeping game within their respective boundaries, so that the property is not altered by driving them out of the inclosures, unless it be also out of the pursuit of the officers.—Id.
4. Also the common law warrants the hunting of ravenous beasts of prey on another’s ground, such as foxes, wolves, badgers, &c. but will not justify the digging for them.—Id.
Law Reports.
Ubi ingenio non erat locus, curæ testimonium promeruisse contentus.
Court of King’s Bench, Dec. 24th.
BOYDELL v. DRUMMOND.
This cause, of the utmost importance to the arts and artists, and to the liberal patrons of both in this country, came on to be heard at Guildhall, before Lord Ellenborough and a special jury of merchants. The consequences which may result from it, whether the plaintiff ultimately succeeds upon the merits, or be defeated by technical objections, without the merits being fairly tried, are of sufficient magnitude to make any apology unnecessary for our giving a full and, we hope, impartial and accurate view of what passed on this interesting occasion.
This case was opened by his majesty’s Attorney-General, in a speech deservedly admired for strength and perspicuity of argument. The action was brought by Josiah Boydell, Esq. the worthy representative and partner of the late Alderman Boydell, against the defendant, John Drummond, Esq. banker at Charing-Cross, to recover the value of a number of prints which he had refused to take agreeably to his contract for that purpose, as a subscriber to the Shakspeare Gallery. The Attorney-General observed, that nothing perhaps had contributed to raise the country in
No. II. Vol. I. O
