HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0056 and id is 1 raw text is: extends that protection to him. If that were not so, the magistrate [341] would be
protected, whilst the more ignorant constable, acting under a mistake, would have no
protection at all. The words acting as aforesaid, in the 8th section, refer only to
the word person, immediately preceding, and are equivalent to the words acting
in aid or in assistance to the constable, and not to the words for any thing done
obedience to any warrant. The case of Postlethwaite v. Gibson, decided by Lord in
Kenyon, has been referred to. No man can entertain a higher respect for the memory
of that noble and learned Judge than I do; but Nisi Prius decisions, coming even
from him, unless they have been acted upon by succeeding Judges sitting in Bank,
are entitled to very little consideration. It seems to me, therefore, that this rule
should be made absolute.
Rule absolute.
HUNT against ANDREWS. Monday, January 24th, 1820. In an action against a
game-keeper for a penalty for using a gun to kill game, without being qualified,
evidence of the real title to the manor is admissible, for the purpose of negativing
the existence of a colourable title in the person under whom the defendant claims
to act. Entries in the books of the clerk of the peace of deputations formerly
granted to game-keepers by the real owner of the manor, are also evidence to
shew that manerial rights were publicly exercised by him, and that the person
whose title was set up by defendant, knew that he had not any title whatever.
Debt for a penalty, for using a gun to kill game, without being qualified. Plea,
not guilty. At the trial before Richardson J., at the last Summer Assizes for the
county of Worcester, the offence laid in the declaration was proved to have been com-
mitted by the defendant, in the manor of Bordesley, in that county. The defence
was, that the defendant acted under a deputation from Mr. Geast, who claimed to be
[342] lord of the manor of Bordesley ; and, to shew that Geast had a colourable title,
the defendant gave in evidence a deed of bargain and sale, dated the 1st May, 1806 ;
whereby, after reciting an indenture of bargain and sale, inrolled in 1802, to make a
tenant to the prmeipe, for the purpose of suffering a common recovery, and a common
recovery suffered accordingly of the hereditaments thereinafter mentioned, Lord
Foley, for a certain consideration therein mentioned, conveyed to Geast, and his heirs,
all that manor or reputed manor or lordship of Bordesley, otherwise Bordsley, with
the rights, royalties, privileges, and appurtenances thereto belonging, in the county
of Worcester; and all that park called Bordesley Park, and divers parcels of lands
described to be parcel of the possessions of the late dissolved monastery of Bordesley,
and severed from the rest of the possessions thereof, by a conveyance made by Lord
Windsor to Thomas Foley, together with all deeds relating to the premises conveyed,
and copies of all deeds relating to those and other premises. It was further proved,
that Geast, in 1806, granted a deputation, in which he was described as lord of the
manor of Bordesley, to a person of the name of Moor, who acted as his gamekeeper,
and that, afterwards, he granted a similar deputation to the defendant, under which
he claimed to act at the time of the committing of the alleged offence. These deputa-
tions were inrolled with the clerk of the peace, and certificates granted thereon. It
was also proved, that two courts had been held by Mr. Geast, one of which was ill
1816, and that he and Lord Foley had also cut down timber on the wastes of the
manor, and that Geast had impounded sheep trespassing on the wastes or free-boards,
(which were little slips of lands on the sides of lanes,) the adjoining [343] land to
which, in some instances, on both sides of the road, were occupied by Geast himself,
and in others, by his tenants. Upon this evidence, the defendant contended, at the
trial, that it was not competent to the plaintiff to give other evidence in reply, in
order to shew, that the real title to the manor was not in Mr. Geast: the learned
Judge over-ruled that objection ; and the following evidence was given on the part of
the plaintiff. First, a grant by King Henry 8, dated 27th April, 1543, to Andrew,
then Lord Windsor, his heirs and assigns, of the site of the late monastery of
Bordesley, in the county of Worcester, and also all those our lordships and manors of
Bordesley and Tardebig, and divers others, with all rights, &c. thereto belonging.
A deed was then produced, dated February, 1655, whereby Thomas Lord Windsor
conveyed to Thomas Foley all that park, with the appurtenances called Bordesley,
(all which park, &c., were parcel of the possessions of the dissolved monastery of
688
HUNT V. ANDREWS
3 B. &- AMD. SOl.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0056&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)