## Facts

- Geush owned enclosed land (a close).
- Mynns, a private hunter, pursued a badger that was on Geush’s land.
- Mynns set hounds on the badger; the badger retreated underground on the same property.
- Mynns entered Geush’s land without consent, dug into the soil to extract the badger, and killed it.
- Mynns refilled the hole after killing the badger.
- Geush sued in trespass quare clausum fregit, alleging wrongful entry and digging on his land.
- Mynns demurred, effectively admitting the entry and digging but arguing they were legally justified because the common law encouraged destruction of “ravenous beasts of prey and other vermin” for the public good.
- The case presented a legal question about whether that public-policy rationale supplied a defense to trespass, not a dispute over what occurred.

## Issues

1. Whether general common-law policy encouraging the destruction of vermin grants a private individual an implied privilege to enter another’s land without consent to pursue and kill such animals.
2. Whether digging on another’s land to extract and kill a harmful wild animal can be justified absent a specific legal authorization (such as necessity, office, statute, or a recognized right of entry).

## Decision

- The King’s Bench ruled for Geush (the landowner) and against Mynns (the hunter).
- The court rejected the claimed justification that public benefit in killing vermin implied permission to enter and disturb another’s land.
- Mynns’s demurrer failed; the conduct alleged was treated as actionable trespass because no recognized privilege defeated the landowner’s claim.

## Legal Principles

- An unauthorized physical entry onto another’s land is prima facie trespass; the cause of action is complete upon entry, even if the entrant acts with benign motives or claims to confer a public benefit.
- A general public-policy preference for certain conduct (such as vermin control) does not, by itself, create a private right to enter another’s land or to disturb the soil.
- A defense to trespass based on lawful entry requires a specific source of authority (e.g., necessity recognized by law, statutory power, warrant, or another established privilege), not an inferred license from broad public interests.
- Burdens on land and rights of entry are not presumed from general policy; they must be grounded in clear, affirmative legal authorization.

## Conclusion

The court held that a private hunter’s entry and digging on another’s land to kill vermin was not justified by general public policy favoring vermin destruction; without a recognized legal privilege, the landowner’s right to exclusive possession prevailed and trespass remained actionable.


Geush v. Mynns, 79 Eng. Rep. 274 (K.B. 1614)