Appendix to the Memorial. 139 



they should be removed from the place where they were found i 

 to the place of domicile of the finder, or the place where they \ 

 are intended to be kept. * 



And he then explains that it is not essential that this posses- 

 sion should at first be manual. 



That possession may also be acquired with instruments, 

 such as snares, nets, traps, weirs, hooks and the like ; * * * 

 provided that these instruments are entirely under our con- 

 trol * * * and also that the animal is so well caught 

 that it cannot possibly escape, at least during the length of 

 time required to put the hand on it. 



Heinneccius^ lays down the same rule, and so far both he and 

 Puffendorf merely repeat what Grotius^ says on the same subjecti 

 Puffendorf finally makes the distinction at Sec. 10: 



That if I have mortally wounded or at least seriously 



disabled an animal, no one can lay any claim to it so long as I 



pursue it on grounds where I have the right to hunt; but if 



^ the wound be not mortal, and the animal can well escape, it 



still goes to the first occupant. 



Barbeyrac criticises Puffendorf, and holds that it is not always 

 necessary that the animal should be wounded or removed from 

 its natural element, and that its mere discovery and pursuit, with 

 the intention to capture it, are sufiicient. Pothier^ observes that 

 in France the latter opinion prevails in practice, dans I'usage; but 

 Laurent,* says that the jurisprudence has been to the contrary. A 

 decision of the Superior Court of Quebec holds that it is sufficient 

 that the animal be wounded and pursued, and quotes the authority 

 of Cujas. Charlebois v. Raymond^ 



iSect. 342. 



^Lib. 2, cap. 8, sect. 3 and 4. 



'Propriete, n. 26. 



*Vol. 8, n. 442. 



812 L. C. Jur. 55. 



