§ MR. R. W. DUFFasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, in consequence of the admitted evasion of the Wild bowl Preservation Act, 1876, he will place that Act in the same relative position as the Salmon Preservation Act, 24th and 25th years of Victoria, chapter 109, section 19, whereby the burden of proving the commodity exposed for sale during close time is imported is thrown on the salesman? He further asked, if the attention of the right hon. Gentleman had been called to two cases reported in the "Times" of that morning, where the presiding magistrates appeared to have come to different conclusions?
MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, his attention had been called to the two police-court cases reported in The Times of that morning. He hoped the question raised would be settled in one of them by a Superior Court, and until some decision was arrived at he did not think it would be expedient to legislate with the object referred to in the Question.