§ MR. J. W. BARCLAYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to a trespass case tried at Stone-haven on Wednesday last where the sheriff substitute inflicted on a farm servant a fine of one pound, with four pounds expenses, for walking over rough pasture on his master's farm with a gun, his master having the benefit of the Ground Game Act, and the servant having alleged he had a written permission from his master, which he had left at the farmhouse; whether he did not say, when the Bill was passing this House, that, under circumstances as described, production of the written permission at the farmhouse would be held to be production on demand, and no 842 judge would convict; and, whether, under the circumstances, he will remit the sentence?
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, in reply, said, he had made inquiry into the case mentioned, and he had received a report from the sheriff. It was not a case in which the man had left his written permission behind him, as he never had any permission at all. Even if he had, however, he would have violated the law by going in search of game in the month of June, which was an unlawful time under the Act; therefore, the point did not at all turn upon his leaving his permission behind him. He had received a statement of the gentleman who acted for the landowner in the prosecution, and he stated that if it had been shown to Dr. Young or his factor that the accused had a permission, the proceedings would have been withdrawn; but no such permission was ever shown to have existed.