159 



a% long as tlicy are in tlic liabit of rctui iiing to it, or can bo pursued 

 and identified wlien absent from their liive, tlie law gives to tlie owner 

 of the premises a right of propertj^ in the swarm. Possession, in fact, 

 of the swarm, or of the individual bees, is not otherwise necessary. 

 Possession, in .law, exists, if the swarm regularly abides in the hive 

 so that the product can be regularly obtained for man's use. And 

 when the swarm flies abroad the right of property is not lost as long as it 

 can be pursued and identified, and does not establish another habitation. 

 And this right attaches not only to the swarm that has continuously 

 occupied the hive jirovided for it, but to new swarms which go out 

 from overpopulated hives in search of another home. The latter, 

 equally with the original swarm, remain the i)roperty of the OAvner 

 of the hive, Avherever they may go, as long as they can be identified 

 and until all hope of their being recovered is abandoned. 



In the case of wild pigeons, what must man do that he may acquire 

 property in them ? Nothing more than to provide a place or box in 

 which they can take shelter, and where they can breed and rear their 

 young in safety. There is no possession in the owner other than that 

 coming from his occupancy of the laud, and from his ownershij) and 

 control of the place provided for the use of the flock. There is no 

 handling (as there could not be) of individual pigeons constituting the 

 flock. But the owner holds such relations to the flock that he can reg- 

 ularly take its increase without diminishing the stock, so long as they 

 continue to fi-equent the place provided for them. While the capac- 

 ity to do that exists, the original "occupation," the fouiulation of the 

 right of iiroperty, remains in full force. 



In the case of deer, naturally wild, all that is essential to the acquisi- 

 tion of property in them by man is that he provide or keep a place for 

 them, to which, by reason of his care, industry, and forbearance they 

 habitually resort, and where they remain with such regularity under his 

 general super\dsion, control, and protection that he can, without impair- 

 ing the stock, reap the benefit of the i ncrease. In the cases cited from the 

 English courts, it does not appear that the deer were taken into actual 

 custody. Their owner simjily built a fence around a forest of vast 

 extent, in which the deer roamed at will. Their owner could not lay 

 his hands upon the deer at pleasure. They could be actually taken 

 only as other deer of the forest were taken, by shooting, or with dogs. 

 The owners simjDly protected them and made a husbandry of them. 



Similar observations may be made in respect to geese and swaus. If 



