صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

brewers; his portrait with a foaming glass of ale in his hand had the place of honour in the gild-hall, and this led in time, it is suggested, to the myth of the beer-king who is usually represented outside a barrel with a tankard in his hand.

GAME, a word which in its primary and widest significance means any amusement or sport, often combined in the early examples with 41 glee," "play," "joy" or "solace." It is a common Teutonic word, in 0. Eng. gamcn, in O.H.G. gaman, but only appears in modern usage outside English in Dan. gammen and Swed. gomman. The ulterior derivation is obscure, but philologists have identified it with the Goth, gaman, companion or companionship; if this be so, it is compounded of the prefix ga-, with, and the root seen in " man." Apart from its primary and general meaning the word has two specific applications, first to a contest played as a recreation or as an exhibition of skill, in accordance with rules and regulations; and, secondly, to those wild animals which are the objects of the chase, and their flesh as used for food, distinguished as such from meat, fish and poultry, and from the flesh of deer, to which the name " venison " is given. For " game," from the legal aspect, and the laws relating to its pursuit and capture see Game Laws. The athletic contestsof the ancient Greeks (iyuvts) and the public shows {ludi) of the arena and amphitheatre of the ancient Romans are treated below (games, Classical); the various forms of modern games, indoor and outdoor, whether of skill, strength or chance, are dealt with under their specific titles. A special use ("gaming" or "gambling") restricts the term to the playing of games for money, or to betting and wagering on the results of events, as in horse-racing, &c. (see Gaming And Wacering). "Gamble," "gambler " and " gambling " appear very late in English. The earliest quotations in the New English Dictionary for the three words are dated 1775, 1747 and 1784 respectively. They were first regarded as cant or slang words, and implied a reproach, either as referring to cheats or sharpers, or to those who played recklessly for extravagant stakes. The form of the words is obscure, but is supposed to represent a local variation gammle of the M.E. gamenian. From this word must, of course, be distinguished " gambol," to sport, frisk, which, as the older forms (gambald, gambaud) show, is from the Fr. gambade, leap, jump, of a horse, It- gambado, gamba, leg (Mod. r~x.jam.be).

GAME LAWS. This title in English law is applied to the statutes which regulate the right to pursue and take or kill certain kinds of wild animals (see above). The existence of these statutes is due to the rules of the common law as to the nature of property, and the interest of the Norman sovereigns and of feudal superiors in the pleasures of sport or the chase. The substantial basis of the law of property is physical possession of things and the power to deal with them as we see fit. By the common law wild animals are regarded as res nullius, and as not being the subject of private property until reduced into possession by being killed or captured. A bird in the hand is owned: a bird in the bush is not. Even bees do not become property until hived. "Though a swarm lights in my tree," says Bracton, "I have no more property therein than I have in the birds which make their nests thereon." If reclaimed or confined they become property. If they escape, the rights of ihc owner continue only while he is in pursuit of the fugitive, i.e. no other person can in the meantime establish a right of property against him by capturing the animal. A swarm of bees " which fly out of my hive arc mine so long as I can keep them in sight and have power to pursue them." But the right of recapture does not entitle the owner to follow his animals on to the lands of another, and the only case in which any right to follow wild animals on to the lands of others is now expressly recognized is when deer or hares are hunted with hounds or greyhounds. This recognition merely excepts such pursuit from the law as to criminal game trespass, and fox-hunters and those who course hares or hunt stags are civilly liable for trespass if thsy pass over land without the consent of the occupier (Paid v. Summerhayes, 1878,4 Q.B.D. q).

It is a maxim of the common law that things in which no one can claim any property belong to the crown by its prerogative: this rule has been applied to wild animals, and in particular to

deer and what is now called " game." The crown rights aij pass to a subject by grant or equivalent prescription. In the course of time the exclusive right to take game, &c, on bads came to be regarded as incidental to the ownership or occupaika of the lands. This is described as the right to game rclient sdi. In certain districts of England which are crown forests or chases or legal parks, or subject to rights of free warren, the right to take deer and game is not in the owner or occupier of tbc soil bn is in the crown by prerogative, or ratione prrvilegii in the gxastcr of the rights of chase, park or free warren, which are anterior to and superior to those of the owner or occupier of the lands over which the privilege has been granted. In all cases where the* special rights do not exist, the right to take or kill wild ?nipnk b treated as a profit incidental to the ownership or occupation of the land on which they are found, and there is no public right to take them on private land or even on a highway; nor is there icy method known to the law by which the public at Large or 12 undefined body of persons can lawfully acquire the right to Ult wild animals in alieno solo.

In the nature of things the right to take wild awimiU & valuable as to deer and the animals usually described as game, and not as to those which are merely noxious as vermin, or shxply valuelcss, as small birds. Upon the rules of the common b» there has been grafted much legislation which up till tbc end of the i8tb century was framed for the preservation of deer iad game for the recreation and amusement of persons of fortune, and to prevent persons of inferior rank from squandering m the pursuit of game time which their station in life required to be more profitably employed. These enactments included ihr rigorous code known as the Laws of the Forest (see Foiisi Laws), as well as what are usually called the Game Laws.

In England the older statutes relating to game were all rrpealri early in the 19th century. From the time of Richard EL (1389) to 1831, no person might kill game unless qualified by estate or social standing, a qualification raised from a 40s. freehold in ljSej to an interest of £100 a year in freehold or £150 in long kasehclcs (1673). In 1S31 this qualification by estate was abolished is t» England. But in Scotland the right to hunt is theortticalrr reserved to persons who have in heritage that unknown quactirir a " plough-gate of land " (Scots Act 1621, c. 31); and in Ireland qualifications by estate are made necessary for killing game and keeping sporting dogs (Irish Act 169s, 8 Will. III. c. S). la England the game laws proper consist of theNight Poaching Am of 1828 and 1S44, the Game Act of 1S31, the Poaching Preveoiioa Act 1862, and the Ground Game Acts of iSSo and 1006. Froo the fact that the right of landowners over wild animals on their land does not amount to ownership it follows that they caanot prosecute any one for stealing live wild animals: and that apart from the game laws the only remedy against poachers is by crnl action for trespass. As between trespasser and landowner tie law is peculiar {Blades v. Higgs, 1865, 11 H.L.C. 611). If A starts and kills a hare on B's land the dead hare belongs \o Y< (ratione soli) and not to A, though he has taken the hare by hisown efforts {per industriam). But if A hunts the hare from B's land on to C's land and there kills it, the dead hare belongs to A and not to B or C. It is not B's because it was not taken on has land, and it is not C's because it was not started on his land. In oi>ef words the right of each owner is limited to animals both startr3 and killed on his own land, and in the case of conflicting cla!rc* to the animal taken (made ratione soli) the captor can make title (per industriam) against both landowners. If he is a irespB^r he is liable to civil or criminal proceedings by both landowners, but the game is his unless forfeited under a statute. Anothdr peculiar result of the law is that where trespassers (e.g. poachers1 kill and carry off game or rabbits as part of one comirux** transaction they are not guilty of theft, but only of game trcspas* (R. v. Tovmley, 1871, L.R. 1 C.C.R. 315), but it is theft for a trespasser to pick up and carry off a pheasant killed by the o*ivz of the land on his own land or even a pheasant killed by as independent gang of poachers. The young of wild ariiriJi belong (propter impotentiam) to the owner of the land until they arc able to fly or run away. This right does not extend to tit eggs of wild birds. But the owner can reduce the eggs into possession by taking them up and setting them under hens or in enclosures. And if this is done persons who take them are thieves and not merely poachers. A game farm, like a decoy for vOd water-fowl, is treated as a trade or business; but a game preserve in which full-grown animals fly or run wild is subject to ihe ordinary incidents of the law as to animals Jerae naturae.

The classification of wild animals for purposes of sport in England a ts follows:—

1. Beasts of forest are hart and hind (red deer), boar, wolf and all beasts of vencry.

2. Beasts of chase and park are buck and doe (fallow deer), fox, om-n and roe. or all blasts of venery and hunting.

3. Beasts of (free) warren arc roe, hare, rabbit, partridge, pheasant, wtnr/laxk, quail, rail and heron.

4. Came, as defined by the Night Poaching Act of 1828 and the Game Act of , is pheasant, partridge, black game, red grouse, bustard and hare. In France game (gibier) includes everything tat-sMc that runs or flies.

5. Wild fowl not in any of the previous lists which are nevertheless prurd for sport, e.g. duck, snipe, plovers, &c.

6. Wild birds not falling within class 4 are more or less protected •gainst destruction by the Wild Birds Protection Acts, which were, however, passed with quite other objects than the game laws.

As regards class I no subject without special authority of the crown may kill within a forest or its purlieus or on adjacent highway?, rivers or enclosures. The right to the animals in a forest docs Dci depend on ownership of the land but on the royal prerogative 11 to the animals, i.e. it exists not ratione soli but ratione privilegii: asd this right is not in any way altered by the Game Act 1831. A chase is a forest in the hands of a subject and a legal park (which it an enclosed chase) is created by crown grant or by prescription fojnded on a lost grant. The rights of the grantee arc in substance the same as those of the crown in a forest, and do not depend on ownership of the soil. In the case of a free warren the grantee UMiiHy but not necessarily owns some or all of the soil over which tfc? right of warren runs. The right of free warren depends on crown grant or prescription founded on lost grant, and involves a right of property over beasts and fowl of warren on all lands within the franchise. As will appear from the list above, some game birds %rr not fowl of warren, e.g. black game and red grouse {Duke of Dm+skir* v. Lodge, 1827, 7 B. & C. 39). Free warren is quite

rr-nt from ordinary warrens, in which hares or rabbits arc

[ocr errors]

I--, lie owner of the soil for sport or profit. Ground game in such warrens is protected under the Larceny Act 1861, s. 17, as well as by the game laws. In manors, of which none have been created since 1290, the lord by his franchise had the sporting rights over the munor, but at the present time this right is restricted to the commons in J wastes of the manor, the freehold whereof is in him, and does not roptvl to enclosed freeholds nor as a general rule to enclosed copySoWs, unless at the time of enclosure the sporting rights were re*erved to him by the Enclosure Act or award (Sowerby v. Smith, Ii7). L.R. 8 CP. 514). In other words his rights exist ratione K*'i and not ratione privilegii. The Game Act 1831 gives lords of rmnors and privileged persons certain rights as to appointing timekeepers with special powers to protect game within the district wrr which their rights extend (ss. 13, 14, 15, 16). The game laws is no way cut down the special privileges as to forest, park, chase or ree warren (1831, s. 0), and confirm the sporting right of lords of 9*inorson the wastes of the manor (1831, s. 10). As to all lands not ifected by these rights, the right to kill or take game on the land is wrsumabfy in the occupier. On letting land the owner may, subject x> the qualifications hereinafter stated, reserve to himself the right s> lull or take " game " or rabbits or other wild animals concurrently *?*S or in exclusion of the tenant. Where the exclusive right is in V landlord the tenant is not only liable to forfeiture or damages for *v-irhes of covenants in the lease, but is also liable to penalties on ■jr~itmry conviction if without the lessor's authority he pursues, u'li or takes any " game" upon the land or gives permission to •<W* to do so (1831, s. 12). In effect he is ~ .■ t criminally liable for gamctrcspassonlands i* his own occupation, so far as relates to game, K~t is not so liable if he takes rabbits, snipe, i.v»iroek. quails or rails.

n*e net effect of the common law and the :m» laws is to give the occupier of lands and the ■ r vf sporting rights over them the following 'Ttrdirs against person* who infringe their right <■< kill or take wild animals on the land. A "■anger who enters on the land of another to jfcc any wild animals is liable to the occupier for rt«pa*a on the land and for the animals started nd killed on the land by the trespasser. He is lw criminally liable for game trespass if he has T-Ttd on the land to search for or in pursuit of carae " or woodcock, snipe, quail, landrails or 1 kbits*. If the trespass is in the daytime (whether on lands of the 1 -bjcct or in royal forests, ike), the penalty on conviction may not |

exceed 40s., unless five or more persons go together, in which case the maximum penalty is £5. If a single offender refuses his name or address or gives a false address to the occupier or to the owner of the sporting rights or his representatives, or refuses to leave the land, he may be arrested by them, and is liable to a penalty not exceeding £5, and if five or more concerned together in game trespass have a gun with them and use violence, intimidation or menace, to prevent the approach of persons entitled to take their names or order them off the land, they incur a further penalty up to £5.

If the trespass is in search or pursuit of game or rabbits in the nighttime, the maximum penalty on a first conviction is imprisonment with hard labour for not over tnrec months; on a second, imprisonment, &c, for not over six months, and the offender may be put under sureties not to offend again for a year after a first conviction or for two years after a second conviction. For a first or second offence the conviction is summary, subject to appeal to quarter sessions, but for a third offence the offender is tried on indictment and is liable to penal servitude (3-7 years) or imprisonment with hard labour (2 years). The offenders may be arrested by the owner or occupier of the land or their servants, and if the offenders assault or offer violence by firearms or offensive weapons they are liable to be indicted and on conviction punished to the same extent as in the last offence, fn 1844 the above penalties were extended to persons found by night on highways in search or pursuit of game. If three or more trespass together on land by night to take or destroy game or rabbits, and any of them is armed with firearms, bludgeon or other offensive weapon, they arc liable to be indicted and on conviction sentenced to penal servitude (3-14 years) or imprisonment with hard labour (2 years). By " day " time is meant from the beginning of the first hour before sunrise to the end of the first hour after sunset, and by "night " from the end of the first hour after sunset to the beginning of the first hour before sunrise (act of 1828, s. 12; act of 1831, s. 34). The time is reckoned by local and not by Greenwich time.

The penalties for night poaching are severe, but encounters between the owners of sporting rights and armed gangs of poachers have often been attended by homicide. It is to bcobsrrved that it is illegal and severely punishable to set traps or loaded spring guns for poachers (Offences against the Person Act 1861, s. 31), whereby any grievous bodily harm is intended or may be caused even to a trespasser, so that the incursions of poachers can be prevented only by personal attendance on the scene of their activities; and it is to be observed also that the provisions of the Game Laws above stated arc, so far as concerns private land, left to be enforced by private enterprise without the interference of the police, with the result that in some districts there are scenes of private nocturnal war. Even in the Night Poaching Art 1844, which applies to highways, the arrest of offenders is made by owners, occupiers or their gamekeepers. The police were not given any direct authority as to poachers until the Poaching Prevention Act 1862, under which a constable is empowered "on any highway, street or public place, to search any person whom he may nave good cause to suspect of coming from any land where he shall have been unlawfully in search or pursuit of ' came,' or any persons aiding or abetting such person, and having in nis possession any game unlawfully obtained, or any gun. part of gun, or nets or engines used for the killing or taking game; and also to stop and search any cart or other conveyance in or upon which such constable or peace officer shall have good cause to suspect that any such game, or any such article or thing, is being carried by such person." If any such thing be found the constable is to detain it, and apply for a summons against the offender, summoning him to appear before a petty sessional court, on conviction before which he may be fined not more than £5, and forfeits the game, guns, &c, found in his possession. In this act "game" includes woodcock, snipe and rabbits, and the eggs of game birds other than bustards; and the act applies to poaching cither by night or by day. In all cases of summary conviction for poaching an appeal lies to quarter sessions. In all cases of poaching the game, &c, taken may be forfeited by the court which tries the poacher.

Close Time.—On certain days, and within periods known as "close time/* it is illegal to kill deer or game. The present close times are as follows-—

[table]

1 Unless varied by order of lord-lieutenant. 1 Except in Devon, Somerset and New Forest, where to Scot. 1.

In England and Ireland the winged game above named and hares may not be killed on Sundays or Christmas Day. It is illegal to sell or expose for sale hares or leverets in March, April, May, June and July. It is illegal throughout the United Kingdom to buy or sell winged game birds after ten days from the beginning of the close season as fixed by the English law (1831, s. 4; 1660, s. 13). This prohibition applies to the sale of live game, British or foreign, and to the sale of British dead game. It is illegal to lay poison for game or rabbits except in rabbit holes, and it is illegal to Kill game by firearms at night, wild birds not within the list above given but of interest for sport are protected by close times fixed under the Wild Birds Protection Acts, which may vary in each county of each kingdom.

Licences.—Besides the restrictions on the right to take or kill game which arise out of the law as to ownership or occupation of the lands on which it is found, there are further restrictions imposed by the laws of excise. From the time of Richard II. (1389) until 1831 the right of persons other than gamekeepers properly deputed by the lord of a manor to take game was made to depend on the social rank of the person, or on the amount of his interest in land, which ranged from a 40s. freehold (in 1389) to £100 a year (1671). These restrictions were abolished in 1831, and the right to kill game was made conditional on the possession of a game certificate, now called a game licence in Great Britain (act of 1831, ss. 6, 23). By s. 4 of the Game Licences Act i860*' any person, before he shall in Great Britain take, kill or pursue, or aid or assist in any manner in the taking, killing or pursuing, by any means whatever, or use any dog, gun, net or other engine for the purpose of taking, killing or pursuing any game, or any woodcock, snipet quail, landrail, or any coney, or any deer, shall take out a proper licence to kill game under this act"— subject to a penalty of £20. There are certain exceptions and exemptions as to royal personages, royal gamekeepers, and with reference to taking woodcock or snipe by nets or springes, by coursing or hunting hares or deer, or killing deer, rabbits or hares (Hares Acts 1848, Game Licences Act i860) in certain enclosed lands by the owners or occupiers. A licence is not required for beaters and assistants who go out with holders of a game licence. The licence is granted by the Inland Revenue Department. The issue is regulated by the Game Licences Act i860 as amended by the Customs and Inland Revenue Act 1883. The licences now in use are of four kinds:—

Those taken out after 31st July—

To expire on the next 31st July £300

To expire on the next 31st October . . . .200

Those taken out after 1st November—

To expire on the next 31st July 3 O O

Those taken out for any continuous period of four-
teen days specified in the licence 1 O O

In the case of gamekeepers in Great Britain for whom the employer pays the duty on male servants, the annual licence fee is £2, but the licence extends only to lands on which the employer has a right to kill game. A licence granted to a person in his own right and not as gamekeeper or servant is effective throughout the United Kingdom. The game licence docs not authorize trespass on the lands of others in search of game nor the shooting of game, &c, at night, and is forfeited on a conviction of game trespass (1831, s. 30; i860, s. 11). Persons who have game licences need not nave a gun licence, but the possession of a gun licence docs not qualify the holder to kill game or even rabbits.

The sale of game when killed is also subject to statutory regulation. Gamekeepers may not sell game except under the authority of their employer (1831, ss. 17, 25). Persons who hold a full came licence may sell game, but only to persons who hold a licence to deal in game. These licences are annual (expiringon the istof July), andarc granted in London by justices of the peace, and in the rest of England by the council of the borough or urban or rural district in which the dealer seeks to carry on business (i8.-ji, s. 18; 1893, c. 73, s. 27), and a notice of the existence of the licence must be posted on the licensed premises. A licence must be taken out for each shop. The following persons are disqualified for holding the licence: innkeepers, persons holding licences to sell .intoxicants, owners, guards or drivers of mail-carts, stagecoaches or public conveyances, carriers and higglers (1831, s. 18). This enactment interferes with the grant of game licences to large stores which also have licences to sell beer. The licensed dealer may buy British game only from persons who are lawfully entitled to sell game. Conviction of an offence under the Game Act 1831 avoids the licence (s. 22). The local licence must alio be supplemented by an excise licence for which a fee of £2 is charged. Licensed dealers in game are prohibited from selling game killeu in the United Kingdom from the tenth day after the beginning of close time to the end of that period. The provisions above stated under the act of 1831 applied only to England, but were in i860 extended to the rest of the United Kingdom, and were in 1893 applied to dealers in game imported from abroad. The main effect of the system of licences is to prevent the disposal of game by poachers rather than to benefit the revenue.

Deer.—Deer are not included within the definition of game in any of the English game laws. Deer-stealing was very seriously punished by the old law, and under an act of 9 George I. c 22,

known as the Waltham Black Act, passed because of the depredations

of disguised deer-stcalers in Epping Forest, it was under certain circumstances made a capital offence. At present offences with reference to deer are included in the Larceny Act 1861. It is a fekey to hunt or kill deer in enclosures in forests, chases or purlieus, or in enclosed land where deer is usually kept, or after a previous cccviction to hunt or kill deer in the open parts of a forest, Ac., asd certain minor provisions are made as to arrest by foresters, forfeiticc of venison unlawfully possessed and for unlawfully setting transfer deer. These enactments do not prevent a man from kilCn? oc hti own land deer which have strayed there {Threikeld v. SmiA, 1901, 2 K.B. 531). In Scotland the unlawful killing of deer is punished a» theft.

E%gs.—The owner or occupier of land has no property in the tyi* of wild birds found on his lands unless he takes them up. But urd-.f s. 24 of the Game Act 1831 a penalty of 5s. per egg is incurred by persons who unlawfully (i.r. without being, or having licence fror:, the person entitled to kill the game) and wilfully take from the ttr-i or destroy in the nest the eggs of any game bird, or of a swan, viti duck, teal or widgeon. Similar provisions exist in Ireland under as act of 1698, and by the Poaching Prevention Act 1862 (Veiled Kingdom) power is given to constables to search persons suspected of poaching and to take from them the eggs of pheasants, partndf?grouse or black game. And the Wild Birds Protection Acta deal wiih the eggs of all wild birds except came and swans.

Damage to Crops by Game.— Where an occupier of lands has t<i the right to kill game or rabbits he runs the risk of suffering dan^; by the depredations of the protected animals, which he may not L i without incurring a liability to summary conviction or for breach of the conditions on which he holds the land. At common lav tbt owner of land who has reserved to himself the sporting rijh-, and his sporting tenants, must use the reserved rights rcasocit-S They are liable for any damage wilfully or unnecessarily done to the crops, &c, of the occupier, such as trampling down standtag crops or breaking hedges or fences. They are not directly liable u the occupier for damage done to the crops by game bred on the Uad or frequenting it in the ordinary course of nature: but are Dot entitled to turn down game or rabbits on the land. And if game or rabt4:s are for the purposes of sport imported or artificially raised or. Urv'. the person who breeds or brings them there is liable for the dinar; done to the crops of adjoining owners or occupiers (Ferrer v. Kettm. 1885, 15 Q.B.D. 258; Birkbcck v. Paget, 31 Beav. 403; E&m v. Green, 1862, 2 F. & F. 821).

Recent legislation has greatly increased the rights of the occupiers of land as against the owners of sporting rights over it. As rrgard* hares and rabbits the occupier's nghts arc regulated by the Gw.bj Game Act 1880 (which is expressed to be made " in the interests of good husbandry and for the better security of capital and hbev invested in the cultivation of the soil "). By that act the ootsper of land as incident to and inseparable from his occupation has tbe right to kill and take hares and rabbits on the land. The rifht a indefeasible and cannot be divested by contract with the owner cr landlord or even by letting the occupier's sporting rights to ancrlxr. But where apart from the act the right to kill game on the land a vested in a person other than the occupier, such person has a right concurrent with the statutory right of the occupier to take bares and rabbits on the land. The act does not extend to common tan!* nor to lands over which rights of grazing or pasturage for not mo* than nine months in the year exist. Consequently over such beds exclusive rights of killing ground game still continue, and the lav appears not to apply in cases where a special right of killing or taktaf. ground game vested before the 7th of September 1880 in any ptzy:~ (other than the landlord) by statute, charter or franchise (s. 5). The mode of exercise of the occupier's right is subject to certain limitations. The ground game is only to be taken by him or !:» persons whom he -has duly authorized in writing, who mast -< members of his family or his servants or bona fide employed by kin for reward to take ground game. The written authority mctf t* produced on demand to persons having concurrent rights to take ar-J till the ground game (s. I (1) (c)). Firearms may not be used by night, nor may poison be used, nor may spring traps be set eu^-j: in rabbit holes (s. 6); nor may ground game be killed on day* c-i seasons or by methods pfohibitedby statute in 1880 (s. 10).

In the case of moorland and unenclosed lands (which arc net arable and do not consist of small detached portions of hr*s tfcaa acres) the occupier may between the 1st of September and the 31st of March kill and take ground game; but between the 1st c' September and the 10th of December firearms may not be csei (1880, s. I (3); 1906, s. 2). In the case of such lands theocc*f=rra and the owners of the sporting rights may between the 1st of September and the loth of December make and enforce for their joii benefit agreements for taking the ground game. The AgiU-ol:^' Holdings Act 1906 (operating from 1909) deals, jn/rra/ia.withdar-?'.?? to crops by deer and winged game, but does not apply to dat&i* by hares or rabbits. The tenant of agricultural land is eotitkd ta compensation for damage to his crops exceeding \ s. per sen- over thr area affected if caused by game, " the right to kill or tak.- vbk* >• vested neither in him nor in any one claiming under him othertko the landlord and which the tenant has not permission in writicg *3 kill " (s. 2). The right of the tenant is indefeasible and cannot be contracted away. Disputes as to amount are to be settled by arbitration; but claims to be effectual must be made as to growing crops before reaping, raising or feeding off, and as to cut crops before carrying. In the case of contracts of tenancy created before the 1st of January 1909, allowances arc to be made if by their terms compensation for damage by game is stipulated for, or an allowance of an agreed amount for damage by game was expressly made in fixing the rent. The compensation is payable by the landlord subject to bis right to be indemnified in cases where the sporting rights arc not vested in him.

Sporting Rights.—Sporting rights (•'.*. rights of fowling or of shooting-, or of talcing or killing game or rabbits, or of fishing), when severed from the occupation of land,arc subject toincomcorproperty tax. and to assessment for the purpose of local rates (Rating Act 1874); and in valuing land whether for rates or taxes the value of the sporting rights is now an important and often the chief item of value in beneficial occupation of the land. Where the sporting rights are the landlord's, the rate thereon is paid in the first instance by the tenant and deducted from his rent. Where the sporting right is reserved and let, the rating authority may rate cither the landlord or the sporting tenant as occupier of the right. The Ground Came Acts have not affected the liability to assessment of concurrent rights of killing hares and rabbits reserved by a landlord, or of a concurrent right granted by the occupier (Ryde (2nd ed.)f 385-387). The ownership of sporting rights severed from the ownership or occupation of the land over which they are exercisable is not an interest in land giving the electoral franchise or a claim for compensation if the land is taken under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Acts.

Scotland.—By the law of Scotland all men have right and privilege of game on their own estates as a real right incident thereto, which does not pass by an agricultural lease except by express words, or in the case of ground game by the act of 1880. The landlord is liable to the tenant for damage done to the surface of the lands in evercisc of his right to the game and also for extraordinary damage by over-preserving or over-stocking. Under an act of 1877 he was luble for excessive damage done by rabbits or game reserved to or raaincd under a lease granted after the 1st of January 1878, or reserved by presumption of common law; this act from 1909 onvards is superseded by the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1906. Night poaching is punished by the same act as in England, and day poaching by an act of 1832 and the act of 1882. Until 1887 poaching by night under arms was a capital offence. The definition oi game in Scotland for purposes of night poaching is the same as in England. The provisions of the act of 1832 as to game trespass by day apply also to deer, roe, rabbits, woodcock, snipe, rails and wild duck; but in other respects closely resemble those of the English act of 1831.

Offences against the game laws arc not triable by justices of the peace, but only in the sheriff court. The close time for game birds in Scotland is the same as in England, so far as dealing in them is concerned, but differs slightly as to killing. Black game may not be killed between the 10th of December and the 25th of August, nor purmigan between the 10th of December and the 20th of August. There is no close time for red, fallow or roe deer, or rabbits. By an oJd Scots act of 1621 (omitted from the recent wholesale repeal of ■ich acts) no one may lawfully kill game in Scotland who does not own a plough-gate of land except on the land of a person so qualified.

Ireland.—The common law as to game is the same for Ireland as for England. The game laws of Ireland are contained partly in acts pawd prior to the union (1698, 1707, 1787 and 1797), partly in acts limited to Ireland, and as to the rest in acts common to the whole United Kingdom.

Under the act of 1698 no one may kill game in Ireland who has not a freehold worth £40 a year or £1000 net personality, and elaborate provisions are made by that and Inter acts against the keeping of •Port''* dogs by persons not qualified by estate to kill game. British officers and soldiers in Ireland appear to have been much addicted to poaching, and their activities were restrained by enactments of |6o3 and 1707.

Night poaching in Ireland is dealt with by an act of 1826. Trespass 00 lands in pursuit of game to which the landlord or lessor has by reservation exclusive right is summarily punishable under an act of 1864, which includes in the definition of game, woodcock, snipe, quails, landrails, wild duck, widgeon and teab Under the Land Act 1881 the landlord of a statutory holding may at the commencement of the term subject to the Ground Game Acts retain and exercise the cxrtustve right of taking " game " as above defined.

A game licence is not required for taking or killing rabbits. But in other respects the law as to game licences, dog licences and licences to deal in game is the same as in Great Britain.

Bruiskr Possessions Abroad.—The English game laws have not been earned to any colony as part of the personal law of the colonists, nor have they been extended to them by imperial or colonial legislation. But the legislatures of many colonies have passed acts to preserve or protect native or imported wild animals, and in some of these statutes the protected animals are described as parne. These statutes are free from feudal prepossessions as to sporting rights, and are framed rather on the lines of the Wild Birds i 1 itcction Acts than 00 the English game laws, but in some possession .,, e.t\. Quebec, ■porting leases by the crown are recognized. The acts s:::ce 1895

arc indicated in the annual summary of colonial legislation furnished in the Journal of the Society of Comparative Legislation,

See also Oke's Game Laws, 4th ed., by Willis Bund (1897); Warry, Game Laws of England (1897); Marchant and Watkins, Wild Birds Protection Act (1897). (W. F. C.)

GAMES, CLASSICAL. 1. Public Games.—The public games of Greece (A7&KS) and Rome {Ltidi) consisted in athletic contests and spectacles of various kinds, generally connected with and forming part of a religious observance. Probably no institution exercised a greater influence in moulding the national character, and producing that unique type of physical and intellectual beauty which we see reflected in Greek art and literature, than the public contests of Greece (see Athlete; Athletic Sports). For them each youth was trained in the gymnasium, they were the central mart whither poet, artist and merchant each brought his wares, and the common ground of union for every member of the Hellenic race. It is to Greece, then, that we must look for the earliest form and the fullest development of ancient games. The shows of the Roman circus and amphitheatre were at best a shadow, and in the later days of the empire a travesty, of the Olympia and Pythia, and require only a cursory notice.

The earliest games of which we have any record are those at the funeral of Patroclus, which form the subject of the twentythird Iliad. They are noteworthy as showing that Greek games were in their origin clearly connected with w religion; cither, as here, a part of the funeral rites, or else instituted in honour of a god, or as a thank-offering for a victory gained or a calamity averted, or in cxpiati6n of some crime. Each of the great contests was held near some shrine or sacred place and is associated with some deity or mythical hero. It was not before the 4th century that this honour was paid to a living man (see Plutarch, Lysander, 18). The games of the Iliad and those of the Odyssey at the court of Alcinous are also of interest as showing at what an early date the distinctive forms of Greek athletics—boxing, wrestling, putting the weight, the foot and the chariot race—were determined.

The Olympian games were the earliest, and to the last they remained the most celebrated of the four national festivals. Olympia was a naturally enclosed spot in the rich plain of Elis, bounded on the N. by the rocky heights of Cronion, and on the S. and W. by the Alpheus and its tributary the Cladeus. There was the grove of Altis, in which were ranged the statues of the victorious athletes, and the temple of Olympian Zeus with the chryselephantine statue of the god, the masterpiece of Pheidias. There Heracles (so ran the legend which Pindar has introduced in one of his finest odes), when he had conquered Elis and slain its king Augeas, consecrated a temcnos and instituted games in honour of his victory. A later legend, which probably embodies historical fact, tells how, when Greece was torn by dissensions and ravaged by pestilence, Iphitus inquired of the oracle for help, and was bidden restore the games which had fallen into desuetude; and there was in the time of Pausanias, suspended in the temple of Hera at Olympia, a bronze disk whereon were inscribed, with the regulations of the games, the names of Iphitus and Lycurgus. From this we may safely infer that the games were a primitive observance of the Eleians and Pisans, and first acquired their celebrity from the powerful concurrence of Sparta. The sacred armistice, or cessation of all hostilities, during the month in which the games were held, is also credited to Iphitus.

In 776 B.C. the Eleians engraved the name of their countryman Coroebus as victor in the foot race, and thenceforward we have an almost unbroken list of the victors in each succeeding Olympiad or fourth recurrent year. For the next fifty years no names occur but those of Eleians or their next neighbours. After 720 Bx. we find Corinthians and Megareans, and later still Athenians andextra-Pcloponnesians. Thus what at first was nothing more than a village feast became a bond of union for all the branches of the Doric race, and grew in time to be the high festival to which every Greek gathered, from the mountain fastnesses of Thcssaly to the remotest colonics of Cyrene and Marseilles. It survived even the extinction of Greek liberty, and had nearly completed twelve centuries when it was abolished by the decree of the Christian emperor Thcodosius, in the tenth year of his reign. The last Olympian victor was a Romanized Armenian named Varastad.

Let us attempt to call up the scene which Olympia in its palmy days must have presented as the great festival approached. Heralds had proclaimed throughout Greece the " truce of God." So religiously was this observed that the Spartans chose to risk the liberties of Greece, when the Persians were at the gates of Pylae, rather than march during the holy days. Those white tents which stand out against the sombre grey of the olive groves belong to the Hellanodicae, or ten judges of the games, chosen one for each tribe of the Elcians. They have been here already ten months, receiving instruction in their duties. All, too, or most of the athletes must have arrived, for they have been undergoing the indispensable training in the gymnasium of the Allis. But along the " holy road " from the town of Elis there arc crowding a motley throng. Conspicuous in the long train of pleasurc-scckcrs are the deupol or sacred deputies, clad in their robes of office, and bearing with them in their carriages of state offerings to the shrine of the god. Nor is there any lack of distinguished visitors. It may be Alcibiadcs, who, they say, has entered no less than seven chariots; or Gorgias, who has written a famous iici5u£is for the occasion; or the sophist Hippias, who boasts that all he bears about him, from the sandals on his fect to the dithyrambs he carries in his hand, are his own manufacture; or Action, who will exhibit his picture of the Marriage of Alexander and Roxana—the picture which gained him no less a prize than the daughter of the Hcllanodiccs Praxonidcs; or, in an earlier age, the poct-laurcatc of the Olympians, Pindar himself. One feature of the medieval tournament and the modern racecourse is wanting. Women might indeed compete and win prizes as the owners of teams, but all except the priestesses of Dcmeler were forbidden, matrons on pain of death, to enter the enclosure.

At daybreak the athletes presented themselves in the Boulcutcrium, where the presidents were silting, and proved by witnesses that they were of pure Hellenic descent, and had no stain, religious or civil, on their character. Laying their hands on the bleeding victim, they swore that they had duly qualified themselves by ten months' continuous training in the gymnasium, and that they would use no fraud or guile in the sacred contests. Thence they proceeded to the stadium, where they stripped to the skin and anointed themselves. A herald proclaimed, " Let the runners put their feet to the line," and called on the spectators to challenge any disqualified by blood or character. If no objection was made, they were started by the note of the trumpet, running in heats of four, ranged in the places assigned them by lot. The presidents seated near the goal adjudged the victory. The foot-race was only one of twenty-four Olympian contests which Pausanias enumerates, though we must not suppose that these were all exhibited at anyone festival. Till the 77th Olympiad alt was concluded in one day, but afterwards the feast was extended to five.

The order of the games is for the most part a matter of conjecture, but, roughly speaking, the historical order of their institution was followed. We will now describe in this order the most important.

(1) The Foot-race.—For the first 13 Olympiads the 6p6po%, or single lap of the stadium, which was 200 yds. long, was the only contest. The 6tav\<n, in which the course was traversed twice, was added in the 14th Olympiad, and in the 15th the &6Xtxos, or long race, of 7, 12 or, according to the highest computation, 24 laps, about 2] m. in length. We are told that the Spartan Ladas, after winning this race, dropped down dead at the goal. There was also, for a short time, a race in heavy armour, which Plato highly commends as a preparation for active service. (2) Wrestling was introduced in the iSth Olympiad. The importance attached to this exercise is shown by the very word paJaatra, and Plutarch calls it the most artistic and cunning of athletic games. The practice differed little from that of modern times, save that the wrestler's limbs were anointed with oil and sprinkled with sand. The third throw, which decided the victory, passed into a proverb, and struggling on the ground, such as wo see in the famous statue at Florence, was not allowed, at least at the Olympia. (3) In the same year was introduced thevivrodXo? (pentathlon), a combination of the five games enumerated in the well-known pentameter ascribed to Simonidcs:—

&X|l*i TO&Utdnv, hloKov, SxOM'a, raXtjF.

Only the first of these calls for any comment. The only te*p practised

seems to have been the long jump. The (capers increased their momentum by means of dXrifpct or dumb-bells, which they swung in the act of leaping and dropped as they " took off." The take-oa may have been slightly raised, and some commentators with very little warrant have stated that spring-board* were used- The rrcord jump with which Phayllus of Croton is credited, 55 ft., b incredible with or without a spring-board. It is disputed whether a victory in all five contests, or in three at least, was required to win thwimBXar. (4) The rules for boxing were not unlike those of the modern ring (see Pugilism), and the chief difference was in the use of the caesihs. This in Greek times consisted of leather thongs bound round the boxer's fists and wrists; and the weighting with lead or iron or nasal studs, which made the cacstus more like a " knuckle-duster " thaa a boxing-glove, was a later Roman development. The death of an antagonist, unless proved to be accidental, not only disqualified fori prize but was severely punished. The use of ear-guarrisand the comic allusions to broken cars, not noses, suggest that the Greek boxrr did not hit out straight from the shoulder, but fought windaiffl fashion, like the modern rustic. In the pancratium, a combination <i wrestling and boxing, the use of the caestus, and even of the clenched fist, was disallowed. (5) The chariot-race had its origin in the 23rd Olympiad. Of the hippodrome, or racecourse, no traces remain, but from the description of Pausanias we may infer that the dimensions were approximately 1600 ft. by 400. Down the centre there ran a bank of earth, and at each end of this bank was a tuming-pos round which the chariots had to pass. "To shun the goal with rapid wheels " required both nerve and skill, and the charioteer piayed a more important part in the race than even the modern jockey. Pausanias tells us that horses would shy as they passed the fatal spots. The places of the chariots were determined by lot, and there were elaborate arrangements for giving all a fair start. The number of chariots that might appear on the course at once is uncertain. Pindar (Pyth. v. 46) praises Arcesilaus of Cyrcne for having brcugst off his chariot uninjured in a contest where no fewer than forty took part. The large outlay involved excluded all but rich competitors, and even kings and tyrants eagerly contested the palm. Thus ia the list of victors we find the names of Cylon, the would-be tyraet of Athens, Pausanias the Spartan king, Archelaus of Maeedon, GcJon and Hiero of Syracuse, and Theron of Agrigcnlum. Chariot-races with mules, with mares, with two horses in place of four, were successively introduced, but none of these present any special interest. Races on horseback date from the 33rd Olympiad. As the course was the same, success must have depended on skill as mscb as on swiftness. Lastly, there were athletic contests of the same description for boys, and a competition of heralds and trumpeters, introduced in the 93rd Olympiad.

The prizes were at first, as in the Homeric times, of some intrinsic value, but after the 6th Olympiad the only prize for each contest was a garland of wild olive, which was cut with a golden sickle from the kallistc-phanos, the sacred tree brought by Hercules " from toe dark fountains of Ister in the land of the Hyperboreans, to be a shelter common to all men and a crown of noble deeds " (Pindar, 01. iii. 18). Greek writers from Herodotus to Plutarch dwell with complacency on the magnanimity of a people who cared for nothing but honour and were content to struggle for a corruptible crows. But though the Greek games present in this respect a favourable contrast to the greed and gambling of the modern racecourse, yet to represent men like Milon and Damoxenus as actuated by pore love of glory is a pleasing fiction of the moralists. The successful athlete received in addition to the immediate honours very substantial rewards. A herald proclaimed his name, his parentage and his country; the Hellanodicae took from a table of ivory and gold the olive crown and placed it on his head, and in his hand a branch d palm; as he marched in the sacred revel to the temple of Zens, his friends and admirers showered in his path flowers and costly gifrs, singing the old song of Archilochus, T^wxxo *a.v\*rt«, and his naaae was canonized in the Greek calendar. Fresh honours and rem arc's awaited him on his return home. If he was an Athenian he received, according to the law of Solon, 500 drachmae, ami free ration for life in the Prytancum; if a Spartan, he had as his prerogative the post of honour in battle. Poets like Pindar, Simonidcs and Euripwics sung his praises, and sculptors like Phcidias and Praxiteles were engaged by the state to carve his statue. We even read of a breach in the town walls being made to admit him, as if the common rtvrj were not good enough for such a hero; and there are »cll-atrested instances of altars being built and sacrifices offered to a sucressftJ athlete. No wonder then that an Olympian prize was regarded as the crown of human happiness. Cicero, with a Roman's ccrip-rr.^z for G>"eck frivolity, observes with a sneer that an Olympian \ictcx receives more honours than a triumphant general at Rome, and trfis the story of the Rhodian Diagoras, who, having himstlf woo the prize at Olympia, and seen his two sons crowned on the same day, was addressed! by a Laconian in these words:—" Die, Pii.foras. for thou hast nothing short of divinity to desire." Alato-ies. when setting forth his services to the state, puts first his victory at Olympia, and the prestige he had won for Athens by his masniBcent display. But perhaps the most remarkable evidence of the exaggerated value which the Greeks attached to athletic prowess is a casual expression which Thucydides employs when desenbiof the

« السابقةمتابعة »