case the king against gardener a penal information on whether c charge that  the defendant keep a gun contrary to the statute be a instrument to destroy  game be not maintainable although the conviction state that the defendant  confess the charge SC Sess case SC stram SC and the defendant be convict  before a justice of the peace upon the statute whether c for that he keep a  gun contrary to the statute be a engine to destroy game modern er p which  charge the defendant confess before the say justice of the peace and exception  be take to this conviction strange solicitor general for the plaintiff strong  insist upon the defendant confession and argue that the keep a gun to kill  game be within the statute and that the word of the Act sect be in the  disjunctive keep or use the do either one or the other be a sufficient offence  within the statute Dennison for the defendant except against the conviction  and insist that the charge against the defendant be insufficient his  confession of it must be so too that the charge in this conviction be no  offence against that Act or any other videlicet that he keep a gun be a engine  to destroy game and therefore it may as well have be say he keep a cane  contrary to the statute be a engine to destroy game for it do not appear that  be actual do kill any game and to charge only that he keep a gun be improper  for it include every man that keep a gun and the conviction only say that he  keep a gun contrary to the statute be a engine to destroy game these Iatter  word be but in the nature of a description and limit the former one to those  only who make that use of it that a gun be not proper a engine to destroy game  unless it be put to that use but it be for the defence of a man house as well  as a sword which may perhaps be apply to destroy game the statute car c do not  mention gun but that word be proper omit in the statute whether c for this Act  can only mean such instrument as be mere applicable to destroy game as snare c  otherwise any man who have a gun may undergo the same conviction lee chief  justice there be great weight in the objection to this conviction the word gun  be omit in the four clause of this statute of whether c and the general word  of this Act be not extensive enough to take in every instrument for the  destruction modern of game but such only as be express use for and applicable  to the destruction of game and perhaps to no other purpose and they do not  extend to prohibit a man from keep a gun for his necessary defence but only  from make that forbid use of it and the word gun be purposely omit in this Act  the defendant be not within the penalty page justice of the same opinion  probin justice the objection that the defendant have confess this charge have  be well answer for the confession can be carry no far than the charge itself  and that be insufficient the conviction ought to be quash the engine prohibit  by this Act must be such as be keep on purpose to destroy game and it must  appear by evidence that they have be so use to bring the offence within the  statute whether in which the legislature do purposely omit the word gun  because farmer be general oblige to keep a gun and be no more within the Act  for do so than they be for keep a cabbagenet the conviction ought to be quash  chapel justice of the same opinion and that the reason the word of the Act be  in the disjunctive keep or use c be because people use other folk dog and if  they do they be within the Act and the keep of they must be aver to be on  purpose only to destroy the game lee chief justice the conviction must be  quashedSee king v filer stram Wingfield v Stratford sayer SC will king v hunt  dougl Avery v Hoole Cowp king v Hartley call king v Thompson term Rep a