GENERAL NATURE OF THIS PKOPERTY. 3 



had escaped from some person to whom it would probably 

 have a considerable money value. We think that a wild ani- 

 mal should, on escaping from confinement, still be the subject 

 of larceny, unless it be one commonly found wild in this 

 country." * 



And in a Georgia case the court remarked: "To say that 

 if one has a canary bird, mocking bird, parrot, or an^ other 

 bird so kept, and it should accidentally escape from its cage 

 to the street, or to a neighboring house, the first person who 

 caught it would be its owner, is wholly at variance with our 

 views of right and justice. To hold of the travelling organist 

 with his attendant monkey, if it should slip its collar and go 

 at will out of his immediate possession and control and be 

 captured by another person, that he would be the true owner 

 and the organist lose all claim to it, is hardly to be expected ; 

 or that the wild animals of a menagerie, should they escape 

 from their owner's immediate possession, would belong to 

 the first person who should subject them to his dominion."* 



In an article comparing the cases of MuUett v. Bradley® 

 and Ulery v. Jones^ it is said : "Of course in the Illinois case 

 there was the element that the wild nature had apparently 

 been overcome, and that the animal was substantially domes- 

 ticated. Is there, however, any essential difference between 

 such a case and that, for instance, of a dancing bear or other 

 wild animal that, although not qualified to mingle on terms 

 of social equality with ordinary domestic beasts, is still sub- 

 stantially redeemed from barbarism as well as liberally edu- 

 cated? If an animal of the latter class should make his 

 escape, it seems to us that ordinary justice and the usual 

 analogies of the law would require that the original owner 

 be permitted to reclaim him as ordinary property. The 

 opinion in Mullett v. Bradley expressly holds that escape to 

 a native place or a natural environment is not necessary in 



' 17 Ir. L. T. 10. ° Manning v. Mitcherson, 69 Ga. 447, 450. 

 "24 Misc. (N. Y.) 69s, cited in § 10, infra. 

 '81 111. 403, cited in § 13, infra. 



