Andrews the king against gardener the mere keep a gun unless it be for destroy  game be no offence SC stram Sess can motion by Mr denison to quash a  conviction upon the statute of a c S which set out that the defendant unlawful  have and keep in his custody Andrews er p gun be a engine or instrument for  destroy game contrary to the form of the statute in that case make and provide  and he object that this be no sufficient charge within the a or any other of  the law relate to the game for it be not say that the defendant use the gun  for the destruction of game and a gun be not a instrument so far appropriate  to kill game as that it be criminal for a person to have one in his custody  only and it will have be altogether as well if it have be say that the  defendant have a cane c which may possible be use for the purpose of kill game  and he cite the king and king east g the defendant there be convict for that a  certain rack be a engine to destroy game to watch c and upon motion by  sergeant Whitaker to quash this conviction he urge than the a do not extend to  the bare keep a gun but the only offence intend to be prevent by the Act be  the keep of engine appropriate to and which can only be use in the destroy of  game and also the actual kill of game and he further argue that the word gun  be not mention in the statute and it can come within the meaning of the word  or other engine because it be proper a engine not for the kill game but for  the defence of a man house there be no determination in this case but Parker  c j and the two justice powis and Pratt be of that opinion but Samuel Eyre  just seem to think that a gun be a engine within this statute because it be  mention in car c on the other side it be now argue by solicitor general  strange that the statute of a be in the disjunctive that Andrews if any person  c shall keep or use any greyhound c tunnel or any other engine to kill or  destroy the game c so that if any one keep such a engine as may destroy game  it be sufficient upon this Act now a person may certain have a gun for destroy  game and that it be a proper instrument for that purpose appear by the statute  of car and all the act of the legislature must be suppose to be consistent Mr  solicitor also cite the king and style hill g where it be object to a  conviction for keep a lumber that it do not appear the defendant use it to  destroy game but the court hold the conviction to be good upon this Act  because it be in the disjunctive and Mr solicitor also argue that the  defendant have here in effect confess that he keep a gun for destroy game for  it be charge in the conviction that he unlawful keep in his custody a gun be a  engine or instrument for destroy game  I and afterward it be state that he be  ask if he can say any thing why he shall not be convict c and because he say  nothing in his defence bit confess the premise as before charge c to this last  point it be answer by the court that the defendant confession extend only to  the charge as it be lie in the information the legality of which it be the  part not of the defendant but of the court to judge of and if it be not in  itself sufficient the confession will not enlarge it and the whole court be  clear of opinion that this conviction be not good for as they argue if the  statute of a be to be construe in so extensive a manner as to extend to the  bare have of any instrument that may possible be use in destroy game it will  be attend with very great inconvenience there be scarce any though ever so  useful but what may be apply to that purpose and though a gun may be use in  destroy game and when it be it then fall within the word of the Act yet as it  be a instrument proper and frequent Andrews necessary to be keep and use for  other purpose as the kill of noxious vermin or the like it be not the have a  gun without apply it in the destruction of game that be prohibit by the Act  the word therefore or other engine as fee c j say must be understand of such  instrument as be applicable only to the destruction of game as barepipes c or  of such as be actual employ in that way and chapel just say that if such thing  as be enumerate in the statute and be peculiar fit or dispose for kill game as  harepipes lurcliers c be keep by a unqualified person yet it must be aver that  they be keep to kill game which in the present case will have be sufficient  and in that case it will be incumbent on the person have such thing in his  custody to prove that he keep they for other purpose and suppose this to be  the fact and that he never use they in kill game he will not be punishable and  page just say he remember a case in Lord holt time where it be hold that the  keep a lurcher without use it in kill game be not within the statute of car  though it be express name therein beside Andrews er p as these act restrain  the liberty which be allow by the commonlaw and be also penal they ought not  to be extend further than they must necessary be and probin just say that as  the legislature have the Act of car before they when this be make they will  probable have mention gun express if they have intend to prohibit the have  they in a person custody and therefore it be not without design that the word  be omit the conviction be therefore quash note after the court have deliver  their opinion Mr solicitor say that in the case cite of the king and king Lord  Macclesfield say that he be in the house of Commons when the Act of a be make  and he himself object to the insert of the word gun therein because it may be  attend with great inconvenience S p Wingfield Stratford say will see Avery  Hoole Cowp king Thompson term Rep b r king Hartley call