chap. iv. ELEPHANT. 201 



Some explanation may be needed of why the hunter 

 who had first wounded it, and who really played a very 

 insignificant part in its death, should have claimed the tail, 

 and received payment for killing it, just the same as if no 

 one but himself had been present. When large bodies of 

 men are employed in shooting large game, it has been 

 found necessary, in order to avoid continual disputes, that 

 they should do so under a recognised hunting law ; and as 

 it would be utterly impossible in the case of a number of 

 men firing at different times at the same animal to say 

 which of them had inflicted the death-wound, it has been 

 found to be the best plan to draw a hard and fast line, 

 and to say that an animal belongs to the man who first 

 wounds it, however slightly. It is necessary for his claim 

 to be allowed, that he should follow it up, and though he 

 may have merely scratched it, so long as blood is drawn, 

 and may find it dead, killed by others, it belongs to him 

 if he reaches the spot where it has fallen. 



When we were shooting much in the reeds it was 

 found advisable, from men first wounding the buffaloes 

 while driving them in, and then waiting to claim them 

 till the more plucky ones went in after them and killed 

 them, while they remained outside, to make the rule that 

 in such cases the animal belonged to the man who ulti- 

 mately killed it ; but this is the only exception to the 

 hunting law of first wound. It is sometimes even earned 

 so far that should a himter wound an animal late in the 

 day, and after following it, return without killing it, he 

 has only to mention the fact in camp, saying that he 

 intends to go after it next day, and the animal, though 

 killed by another or found dead, remains his. In this 



