78 GAME COMMISSIONS AND WARDENS. 



CIVIIi ACTIONS. 



Game laws are usually enforced by criminal prosecutions in the 

 name of the State or the people thereof, but a few States have directed 

 that punishment for violation of such laws, or certain provisions, shall 

 be inflicted by civil actions for recovery of penalties. These actions 

 are similar to suits between private persons for recovery of damages, 

 and all the rules of law applicable to civil procedure apply to them. 

 In Illinois the fines for hunting- without license and exceeding the bag 

 limit may be collected by action of debt in the name of the people of 

 the State. In New Jersey civil actions are sometimes resorted to and 

 in New York the usual, if not the exclusive, method of procedure is 

 a civil action instead of a criminal prosecution. Montana allows a 

 civil action for recovery of all fines and penalties, and Wisconsin of 

 certain penalties. In Colorado the commissioner may bring a civil 

 action for possession of game taken, killed, or held in violation of law, 

 or for the value thereof. 



Since the celebrated decision in the case of Geer v. Connecticut 

 (161 U. S., 519), in 1896, determining the status of game and other wild 

 animals and birds, many States have incorporated in their laws a de- 

 claration that all wild animals and birds within the State are the prop- 

 erty of the State. In some instances the assertion has gone further, 

 declaring that no property, right, title, or interest can be acquired or 

 maintained in any game except as permitted by the game law. 



REPLEVIN. 



The action of replevin lies for the recovery of personal property, 

 goods, wares, merchandise, etc., wrongfully seized or detained, and 

 is the remedy pursued by the owner to recover possession thereof. « 

 A logical conclusion from the foregoing definition renders the action 

 of replevin maintainable at the suit of the State for the recovery of 

 game taken, killed, or held in possession in contravention of its 

 statutes. An expression by the supreme court of Minnesota in the 

 decision in the case of Thomas v. Northern Pacific Express Co. (75 

 N. W., 1120), sustains this conclusion. It is there said: 



Wild game belongs to the State in its sovereign capacity. No person can acquire 

 any property in it except by catching or killing it at a time and in a manner author- 

 ized by law. If a person catches or kills it at a time or in a manner prohibited by 

 statute, it still, remains the property of the State, tvhirh may reclaim it. 



Two States— Colorado and Nebraska— have incorporated in their 

 game laws provisions for this remedy, which are given in full in 

 Part III. 



«For notes on replevin suits see 'Free Shipment of Deer in Minnesota' in Forest 

 and Stream, LIV, p. 68, Jan. 27, 1900; 'The Law Supreme' [in Illinois] in Am. 

 Field, LXI, p. 2, Jan. 2, 1904; Ibid, p. 269, Mar. 19, 1904. 



