DISPOSITION OP SEIZED GAME. 57 



Ohio. — 'Escheats to State.' A pparentl}^ disposed of as court may 

 direct. 



Oklahoma. — Disposed of as court may direct. 



Oregon. — Disposed of as court may direct. 



Pennsylvania. — Game sent to nearest lio.spital; nongame birds, after 

 use as evidence, destroyed. 



South Carolina.— Sold. Proceeds paid to State game fund. 



South Dal'ida. — Sold. Procieeds paid to county g-ame fund. 



Tennessee.- — Contiscated. 



Texas. — Disposed of as court may direct. 



Utah. — Sold. Proceeds paid to county treasury. 



Yerhiont. — LTsed as evidence. Apparently disposed of as court may 

 direct. 



Virginia. — Disposed of as court mav direct. 



West Virginia. — Disposed of as court may direct; if sold, proceeds 

 paid to State treasury. 



Wisconsin. — Sold. Proceeds paid to State treasury and credited to 

 hunting- license fund. 



Wyoming. — Sold. Proceeds paid to State game fund. 



From the foregoing it will be seen that in Colorado, Illinois, Maine, 

 Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, South 

 Carolina, South Dakota, and Wyoming the proceeds arising from the 

 sale of confiscated game are used either wholl}' or in part for game 

 protection. In Michigan, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, 

 Virginia, and West Virginia, and apparentl}^ in Louisiana, Mississippi, 

 Ohio, and Vermont, contiscated game is disposed of as the court may 

 direct, while in Missouri, Nebraska, and Penns3dvania, and in Wisconsin 

 in case sale is prohibited, it is donated to some charitable institution. 

 Prior to 1905 a similar provision was contained in the law of Min- 

 nesota, but it was found that these institutions did not properly 

 appreciate the privilege, and upon the recommendation of the ])oard 

 of game and tish commissioners the legislature of that year directed 

 that all contiscated game should be sold and the proceeds paid into the 

 game protection fund. 



The laws of Illinois, ^laryland, Montana, North Carolina, South 

 Carolina, and North Dakota direct the officer selling confiscated game 

 to issue to the purchaser a certificate of lawful purchase and provide 

 that thereafter he nui}' deal with such game as if it had been acquired 

 in the State according to law. 



The right of the State to direct the sale of confiscated birds and con- 

 vey a legal title to the purchaser, who undei- ordinar}^ circumstances 

 would be debarred by law from lawful possession of su<-li birds, was 

 questioned in the case of Meul r. People (111.), reported in 64 N. E., 

 1106, and there sustained. 



