179 



moiis increase in the number of the aninuiLs, that there is no occasion 

 for a recognition of property, eitlier as a reward of man's industry or 

 for the presevation of the race. A recognition in favor of the United 

 States of property in tlie Pribilof herd of seals does not by any means 

 place all wild animals in the same category. The conditions which 

 exist in the case of those wild animals which are admittedly subjects 

 of appropriation as property do not exist in the case of all animals 

 ferce natm-w. And we need only inquire whether those conditions ex- 

 ist in the case of these fur-seals. If they do, our duty is to apply the 

 principle which those conditions suggest, whatever may be the difii- 

 culty of applying it in the case of some wild animals to which counsel 

 have referred in argument. 



It is scarcely necessary to say that these principles, in the judgment 

 of some courts, have no application to noxious animals, that can sub- 

 serve no useful purpose and may be dangerous to the community, 

 except, perhaps, when they are actually conlined and are kept for 

 amusement or for scientihc purposes. An illustration of this distinc- 

 tion is found in Hannan vs. Moclcett decided by the court of King's 

 Bench, and reported in 2 Barn. i& Cress., pp. 931, 937-8,943-4, 38, 43, 

 44. The declaration in that case stated that the plaintiff was pos- 

 sessed of a close of land with trees growing thereon, to which rooks 

 had been used to resort and build their nests and rear their young 

 by reason whereof he had been used to kill and take the rooks 

 and the young thereof, from which great profit and advantage had 

 accrued to him ; yet the defendant, wrongfully and maliciously, intend- 

 ing to injure the plaintiff and alarm and drive away the rooks, and to 

 cause them to forsake the trees of the plaintiff, wrongfully and injuri- 

 ously caused guns loaded with gunpowder to be discharged near the 

 plaintifi"'s close and thereby disturbed and drove away the rooks, in 

 consequence of which the plaintiff was prevented from killing the 

 rooks and taking the young thereof. The plea was not guilty. Bayley, 

 J., said: "The plaintiff does not state any special right in him to have 

 the rooks resort to his trees; he relies upon that general right which 

 all the King's subjects have, and he describes the profit to arise to him, 

 not from the eggs, but from killing the birds and their young. To 

 maintain an action the plaintiff must have had a right, and the defend- 

 ant must have done a wrong. A man's rights are the rights of personal 

 liberty, personal security, and private property. Private property is 

 either property in possession, property in action, or property that an 

 individual has a sj^ecial right to acquire. The injury in this case does 



