232 ESSENTIALS OF VETERINARY LAW 



York court held such a law unconstitutional, as 

 being an interference with the power of Congress 

 over interstate traffic.^^ 



But death of a domestic animal does not termi- 

 nate the owner's property right in it, and while it 

 may be required that the carcass be so disposed 

 of that it will not become a nuisance the municipal 

 authorities cannot arbitrarily deprive him of his 

 property by giving it to another. ^^ These were 

 both cases relating to dead dogs. 



188. Qualifications. Cats, birds, and wild ani- 

 mals are regarded in the same class, though spe- 

 cial statutes have been passed, as in Wisconsin, 

 making such animals subjects of larceny. Accord- 

 ing to the English law, game animals on a preserve 

 are recognized as qualified property of the owner 

 of the land, but that custom has not been prev- 

 alent in this country. However, the killing of 

 game upon private property may be regarded as 

 trespass and punished accordingly. Where the 

 game lias been captured and kept in captivity the 

 property right would be recognized ; but if the ani- 

 mal escaped from confinement property right 

 would probably be considered as doubtful. 



189. Dogs. The legal decisions relative to the 

 right of property in dogs in this country show a 

 gradual development. In the earlier decisions we 

 were told that property in a dog was base prop- 

 erty, regarded as property for certain puri:)oses 

 only, and entitled to less consideration and protec- 



11 People V. Buffalo Fish Co., Vaiitrcese v. McGee, 26 Ind. 

 164 N. Y. 93, 58 N. E. 34. App. 525, 60 K E. 318. PuB- 



12 Campbell v. District of Co- Lie Health, 450. 

 lumbia, 19 App. D. C. 131; 



