142 The Frederick G erring, Jr. 



aiitem corporalis qucrdam possessio ad do7}iiniii7n adipiscen- 

 diim; at que idea vulncrasse non sufHcit." But in the follow- 

 ing section he explains and qualifies this definition of occu- 

 pancy: "Scd possessio ilia potest non solis manibus, sed in- 

 struDienlis, ut decipiilis, ratibus, laqueis dum duo adsint; pri- 

 niitiii ut ipsa instvumcnta sint in nostra potestate, deinde ut 

 fera, iia ludusa sit, ut cxire inde ncqneat." This (jualification 

 embraces the full extent of Barbeyrac's objection to Puffen- 

 dorf's definition, and allows as great a latitude to acquiring 

 property by occupancy, as can reasonably be inferred from 

 the words or ideas expressed by Barbeyrac in his notes. The 

 case now under consideration is one of mere pursuit, and pre- 

 sents no circumstances or acts which can bring it within the 

 definition of occupancy by Puffendorf, or Grotius, or the ideas 

 of Barbeyrac upon that subject. 



Pier son v. Post^ was reafifirmed in 1822 by the same court in 

 Buster v. New Kirk.* 



Per Curiam. The principles decided in the case of Pier- 

 son V. Post" are applicable here. The authorities cited in that 

 case establish the position that property can be acquired in 

 animals fercc naturce, by occupancy only ; and that, in order to 

 constitute such an occupancy, it is suificient if the animal is 

 deprived of his natural liberty, by wounding, or otherwise, 

 so that he is brought within the power and control of the 

 pursuer. In the present case, the deer, though wounded, ran 

 six miles: and the defendant in error had abandoned the pur- 

 suit that day, and the deer was not deprived of his natural 

 liberty, so as to be in the power or under the control of N. 

 He, therefore, cannot be said to have had a property in the 

 animal, so as to maintain the action. The judgment must be 

 reversed. 



Having arri\ed at the conclusion that the bailing of the fish is 

 an operation of fishing, or taking fish, it is not necessary for me 

 to express any opinion upon two important questions which were 

 raised by the Crown, namely, whether the recent Dominion statute 

 prohibiting purse seining, applies to this case, and whether the con- 

 vention of 1818 prohibits American fishermen from entering with- 

 in three miles of the coasts of the Dominion — others than bays and 



33 Caine 175. 

 420 Johns, 74. 



