:» WILD ANIMALS. 



ter of the forest allows every freeman to be entitled to the 

 honey found within his own woods, affords great countenance 

 to this doctrine that a qualified property may be had in bees 

 in consideration of the property of the soil whereon they are 

 found.^^ The application of this rule of the animus revertendi 

 to the cases of particular animals is treated below.^* 



5. When Wild Animals are the Subjects of Larceny. — In order 

 to assert property in wild animals in a civil action, like tres- 

 pass, the plaintiff must show that they were already captured 

 •or domesticated and of some value, or that they were dead, 

 or that the defendant killed or took them on the plaintiff's 

 ground, or that the game was started there and killed or cap- 

 tured elsewhere, the plaintiff asserting his possession by join- 

 ing in the pursuit. ^^ But in a criminal action, in order to con- 

 vict the defendant of larceny it was necessary at the common 

 law, except in one or two special cases, to show another fact 

 iDesides that the animal was dead, reclaimed or confined — viz. : 

 that it was of a species fit for food.^^ Animals kept for pleas- 

 ure, curiosity or whim, such as dogs, bears, cats, apes, parrots, 

 singing-birds, ferrets, foxes, etc., were held not to be the sub- 

 jects of larceny by reason of the baseness of their nature.^® 

 These exceptions arose at a time when larceny was punish- 

 able with death, and the principle was no doubt a sounder one 

 for this reason than appears at sight.^" In the report of the 



'° 2 BI. Com. 393. And see Mr. Justice Harlan's opinion in the Behring 

 Sea Arbitration, p. 158; Rexroth v. Coon, 15 R. I. 35; Gillet v. Mason, 

 7 Johns. (N. Y.) 16; Idol v. Jones, 2 Dev. L. (N. C), 162, 



■" See §§ 8-14, infra. 



"2 Greenl. Ev., § 620, citing Ireland v. Higgins, Cro. Eliz. 123; Grymes 

 V. Shack, Cro. Jac. 262; Churchward v. Studdy, 14 East 249; Com. Dig. 

 Trespass A (i); Sutton v. Moody, 2 Salk. 556; Pierson v. Post, 3 Cai. 

 (N. Y.) I7S. 



-' 4 Bl. Com. 235. 



See on the general subject of Larceny, Title III, Ch. II, infra. 



"' 4 Bl. Com. 235. 



"° See the article on the Criminal Code quoted in 17 Ir. L. T. 10, and 

 the opinion in Whittingham v. Ideson, 8 Upper Can. L. Jour. 14. 



