DISTRICT POLICE NEWS
The Derby Mercury (Derby, England),
Wednesday, November 7, 1860; Issue 6712.
Nov. 3
[Before R. W. M. NESFIELD, and W. LONGSDON, Esqrs.]
Night Poaching.- Two young men from Sheffield, call-
ing themselves John Marshall and Thomas Atherton, where
charged by Mr. Wilson, head keeper at Chatsworth, with
poaching that morning at 1 o 'clock ; the keepers found about
300 yards of netting and stakes, and on the capture of these
men by the keepers they were attacked by a powerful lurcher
dog ; this, however, the keepers killed in self-defence, and took
the prisoners to the Bakewell lock-up at 3 a.m. - They were
committed for three months each to hard labour, and ordered
to find the usual sureties at the expiration of their imprison-
ment.
Showing posts with label gamekeeper. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gamekeeper. Show all posts
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Thursday, November 12, 2009
DRURY V. SCOTT
Jackson's Oxford Journal (Oxford, England),
Saturday, April 10, 1824; Issue 3702.
DRURY V. SCOTT,
This was an action to recover the value of a dog
which was killed by the defendant's gamekeeper. It
appeared in evidence that the plaintiff's servant was
out with the dog ( a lurcher), and that when near the
defendant's residence at Woodhall, he killed a hare.
The defendant's gamekeeper came up immediately
after; the servant threw the hare into a ditch, and
the dog instinctively ran away, the gamekeeper having
previously sworn vengeance against him. The
gamekeeper then seized hold of the man, and the dog
seeing this, returned to defend him. The game-
keeper threw a cord around the dog's neck, and
brought him to his master's house, and there hung
him. The servant was convicted of poaching, and
sent to the House of Correction for three monthes,
The only defence was that the dog was a lurcher, and
was found in the pursuit of game.- Verdict for the
plaintiff - damages 40s.
Saturday, April 10, 1824; Issue 3702.
DRURY V. SCOTT,
This was an action to recover the value of a dog
which was killed by the defendant's gamekeeper. It
appeared in evidence that the plaintiff's servant was
out with the dog ( a lurcher), and that when near the
defendant's residence at Woodhall, he killed a hare.
The defendant's gamekeeper came up immediately
after; the servant threw the hare into a ditch, and
the dog instinctively ran away, the gamekeeper having
previously sworn vengeance against him. The
gamekeeper then seized hold of the man, and the dog
seeing this, returned to defend him. The game-
keeper threw a cord around the dog's neck, and
brought him to his master's house, and there hung
him. The servant was convicted of poaching, and
sent to the House of Correction for three monthes,
The only defence was that the dog was a lurcher, and
was found in the pursuit of game.- Verdict for the
plaintiff - damages 40s.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)