30 ARGUMENT OP GEEAT BRITAIN. 



No scientific authority can be adduced in support of the 

 contention that the seal is other tlian a wikl animal; and it 

 is believed that no opinion from any source which is recog- 

 nized as entitled to weight can be quoted to such an eft'ect. 



Statement of the Law of the United States and Great Britain 

 as to Property in Animals " Ferce Naturce.'''' 



The common law in force both in America and England 

 as to animals feroi naturm is identical. 



PROPERTY IN WILD ANIMALS DEPENDENT ON POSSESSION. 



This law recognizes no property in animals ferw naturw 

 until j)Ossession. Property, while the animals are alive, 

 remains only so long as this possession lasts; when this 

 possession is lost the property is lost. The law considers 

 that they are then wild animals at large, and that the rights 

 of capture revert to all alike. 



The owner of land has what is sometimes called a quali- 

 fied property in wild animals on the land, but this is no 

 more than the exclusive right to take possession while they 

 are there, and when they leave the land that exclusive right 

 is gone. 



Tlie following i)assage is taken from the treatise of the 

 well-known authors, Pollock and Wright, on " Possession 

 in the Common Law," p. 231 : 



. . . Trespass or theft cannot at common law be committed of 

 living animals fene nattirw unless they are tame or confined. They 

 may be in the park or pond of a person who has the exclusive right 

 to take them, but they are not in his possession unless they are either 

 80 confined, or so powerless by reason of immaturity that they can be 

 taken at pleasure with certainty 



EXAMPLES OF TAKING POSSESSION. 



The following examples from decided cases illustrate the 



nature of possession. 



32 Young V. Kitchens (6 Q. B. 606), fish only partly 



in a seine-net were held not to be in possession. 



E. V. Eevu Pothadu (Ind. L. R. 5 Madras 390), fish in 



irrigation tanks in India were held not to be in possession. 



REASON FOR REGOGNI'lION OF EXCLUSIVE RIGHT. 



The law does not give to the owners of land this qualified 

 property as to wild animals on their land by reason of any 

 care, or feeding, of the wild animals, or management which 

 falls short of reducing them into possession: it is rested 

 solely on the fact of the ownership of the land, and the 

 fact that any other person coining on the land to take the 

 animals is a tresj)asser. 



VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT. 



The exclusive right to take possession may be violated; 

 but as the right comes to an end when the animals leave 



