
    John S. Hart and George Nelson v. The State of Ohio.
    The right reserved to the owner of premises by the act of March 21, 1874 (71 Ohio Ii. 32), to use and employ ferrets to catch rabbits thereon, is personal to himself and those acting for him. His mere permission to another to use and employ ferrets for such purpose, on his premises, does not relieve the latter from the penalty prescribed by the statute for its violation.
    Motion for the allowance of a writ of error to the Court of Common Pleas of Summit county.
    The defendants were indicted and tried under the act to prevent the use of ferrets to catch rabbits (Y1 Ohio L. 82), for unlawfully using and employing on premises not owned by them, or either of them, a ferret for the purpose of catching rabbits. On the trial, they proposed and offered to prove that the owner of the premises where the alleged hunting took place, gave them his permission to hunt rabbits with ferrets thereon, and that such hunting constituted the offense charged. The court, on the state’s objection thereto, excluded the testimony offered to establish such fact, and the plaintiffs excepted to the ruling.
    The plaintiffs were convicted and sentenced, and now ask the allowance of a writ of error to reverse the judgment.
    
      II. C. Sanford, for the motion.
    
      U. W. Stuart, contra.
   By the Court.

There was no error in excluding the testimony offered. The statute upon which the indictment is founded, declares it to be unlawful for any person or persons to use or employ, or attempt to use or employ, except upon premises owned by such person or persons, ferrets for the purpose of catching rabbits, or driving them from their burrows or hiding-places. This provision of the statute does not prohibit the owner of premises fi’om employing or using feri’ets forthepui'pose of catching rabbits thereon, but it -does prohibit all others, not acting for him, to use or employ them on his premises for such purpose; and his mere permission does not excuse their act, nor affect its criminal character. ■ The exception in the statute is limited to the use and employment of ferrets by the owner of the pi’emises on which the hunting takes place, and is personal to him, and those acting for him. This construction of the statute is fully supported, when considered in connection with the act of February 27,1873 (70 Ohio L. 52), and the act of April 20, 1874 (71 Ohio L. 147).

Writ disallowed.

Gilmore, J., dissented.  