232 ESSENTIALS OF VETERINARY LAW 
York court held such a law unconstitutional, as 
being an interference with the power of Congress 
over interstate traffic.4 
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 prevy- 
alent in this country. However, the killing of 
game upon private property may be regarded as 
trespass and punished accordingly. Where the 
game has 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 purposes 
only, and entitled to less consideration and protec- 
11 People v. Buffalo Fish Co., Vantreese v. MeGee, 26 Ind. 
164 N. Y. 93, 58 N. E. 34. App. 525, 60 N. E. 318. Pus- 
12 Campbell v. District of Co- Lic Hearn, 450. 
lumbia, 19 App. D. C. 131; 
