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



presence of the wild animals on land or in territorial waters was suffi- 

 cient, the advisers of the United States have endeavoured to supple- 

 ment their case by saying that tlie property that the United States or the 

 owners of lands have depends on animus revertendi. In that they are 

 guilty of two fallacies. One I have endeavoured to expose; the other I 

 am about to expose. The two fallacies are, first, that the suggestion 

 that mere presence of the wild animals upon the islands gives property 

 at all in the animal; and, second, that that property whatever it was is 

 retained by what they are pleased to call animus revertendi. 



I address myself as closely as I can to the second branch of the 

 argument. I must put my proposition somewhat boldly, but I am open 

 to refutation and answer if I make a mistake therein — I assert there is 

 no instance in the books where the doctrine of animus revertendi has 

 been applied, where possession had not been already previously taken. 

 I say the doctrine of animus revertendi only applies where possession 

 has been taken, so that, in fact, the person has had at some time or 

 other the power of taking and actually capturing and possessing the 

 animals. I care not which animal be chosen, I will take only one of 

 the four or five instances there are in the books to which attention 

 may be called; but I should like to take two, one of which certainly 

 appeared very, very often in the argument of my learned friend, Mr. 

 Carter, because I could not help thinking that like the bee that returns 

 to the flower from time to time to get honey from it, whenever my 

 learned friend, Mr. Carter, was a little exhausted, he returned to the 

 bees themselves as his stock instance; and I do not think I shall be 

 wrong in saying those highly-favoured bees appeared half-a-dozen times 

 in my learned friend, Mr. Carter's argument, not too often for my pur- 

 pose, because they are a very effective illustration of what I mean; I 

 will take the case of the bees. There is never any property in the bees 

 whatever till they have been hived. Every authority agrees on that — 

 Roman, English, American, French. There is no property in the bees 

 ■whatever till they have been hived. What does hiving mean ? Hiving 

 means that in a house prepared for the reception of the bees, moveable 

 if it is considered desirable they should be moved — a skip either made 

 of straw or a structure of wood capable of being closed, so that the 

 bees can be carried away when in the hive, if you desire to take them 

 to another place in that hive; when they have been so hived and by 

 their habits continue to return home to that hive, then so long and so 

 long only is there a property in the swarm or the herd, if ray learned 

 friend likes it, or the hive of bees. Take pigeons in a dovecot. The 

 dovecot is provided and is repeatedly closed at night, but whether 

 closed at night or not, it could be if necessary. In both cases there is 

 food supplied where it is desirable that the animal should have food. 



The President. — You do not speak of a tame dove now. 



Sir Richard Webster. — I speak of a dove or pigeon in respect of 

 which this animus revertendi is supposed to continue the possession — 

 pigeons in a dovecot or pigeon-house. It depends on what you call 

 tame, because there is no case in the books of the wild pigeon that 

 nests in your trees or the rocks, which come back every day or every 

 night, having fed in the fields of the adjoining farmers, being your 

 property. On the contrary, it is specifically put with respect to the 

 pigeons that are housed in the dovecote. 



Lord Hannen. — Homed. 



Sir Richard Webster. — Yes, their home is in the dovecote or 

 pigeon-house. Whether they are tame birds in the sense of feeding 

 out of your hand is a question of degree. 



