ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR RICHARD WEBSTER, Q. C. M. P. 507 



Sir Richard Webster.— I tliink tbe question of property ended at 

 the words "Such habit is called au animus rcvertendiJ^ 



Those are the two vsentences to which Mr. Justice Harlan called my 

 attention. I only read further in case I should have omitted anything:. 



The President. — Still, it was interesting. 



Lord Hannen. — The Authors go on to point out that even if the 

 animal has been tamed and reclaimed, yet, if it is at large so that the 

 taker has no means of knowing it was private proi^erty, it negatives 

 the idea of his having the animus fur andi. 



The President. — Yes; but what as to the question of property? 



Lord Hannen. — It does not touch the question of property in the 

 man who has reclaimed, but only deals with the guilt of the person 

 who took it. 



The President. — You would consider the man who reclaimed 

 remains legal owner. 



Sir Richard Webster. — As my Lord Hannen put, if the animal 

 was his on the ground of having been tamed and reclaimed, and it was 

 going to return to his dominion or place, it would still remain his. 



The President. — So that the man that intercepted it would not be 

 punished for theft, but it would not alter the property. 



Sir Richard Webster. — Y'es. Take the case of a tame stray horse; 

 I doubt very much if a man could be punished for theft if he simply 

 caught the horse, and did not know whose it was, and kept it. He would 

 have no defence to an action for not bringing it back; but he could not 

 be charged with theft, because he would say: — It was a stray horse, 

 and I took it because no one was there with it. 



I will not overlook this question of animus revertendi, and I assure 

 Mr. Justice Harlan that 1 had not the slightest idea of suggesting that 

 property might not be continued by means of animus revertendi but it 

 was the second branch of that which I was about to address myself to. 



Mr. Justice Harlan. — You must excuse me, I did so, because in 

 printed Argument of Great Britain it is introduced in the discussion of 

 the question of property. 



Sir Richard Webster. — I think quite rightly, but you must look 

 at the argument as a whole. 



Mr. Justice Harlan. — I understand and I only meant that that sen- 

 tence should be taken with the one quoted in the brief to get the full 

 mind of the author. 



Sir Richard Webster. — Yes, I think the answer is to consider 

 whether the person who framed it was considering the whole subject 

 or part of it and I understand they were only dealing with possession 

 as distinguished from how that possession would be continued. 



Sir, I cannot state this question of what is sufficient possession bet- 

 ter than in the language of Savigny which is cited in the United States 

 Argument page 108 : 



Wild animals are only possessed so long as some special disposition (custodia) 

 exists which enables us actually to get them into our power. It is not every cus- 

 todia, therefore which is sufficient; whoever, for instance, keeps wild animals in a 

 park, or fish in a lake, has undoubtedly done something to secure them, but it does 

 not depend upon his mere will, but on a variety of accidents whether he can actually 

 catch them when he wishes, consequently, possession is not here retained; quite 

 otherwise with fish kept in a stew, or animals in a yard, because then they may be 

 caught at any moment. Thirdly, wild beasts tamed artificially are likened to domes- 

 ticated animals so long as they retain the habit of returning to the spot where their 

 possessor keeps them {donee animum, i. e. consnetudinem, revertendi habet). 



Now I resume the thread which I dropped just before the adjourn- 

 ment. Pressed with the difficulty of contending successfully that the 



