10 WILD ANIMALS. 



than for use or profit, and is not at all suited to the wants of 

 our enterprising trappers. We take the true criterion to be 

 the value of the animal, whether for the food of man, for its 

 fur, or otherwise. We know that the otter is an animal very 

 valuable for its fur, and we know also that the fur trade is an 

 important one in America and even in some parts of North 

 Carolina. If we are to be bound absolutely by the English 

 authorities without regard to their adaptation to this country, 

 we should be obliged to hold that most of the animals so valu- 

 able for their fur are not the subjects of larceny on account 

 of the baseness of their nature, while at the same time we 

 should be bound to hold that hawks and falcons, when re- 

 claimed, are the subjects of larceny in respect of their gener- 

 ous nature and courage." ^* 



The fact that the animal is dead, reclaimed or confined 

 should be set out in the indictment.^'' 



6. Property in Game — In the case of Sutton v. Moody^^ it 

 was held that a man has property ratione loci in animals which 

 are ferce natures on his land, but that this property ceases 

 when they quit or are hunted ofiE the land. Lord Holt laid 

 down the following propositions : "If a man keeps conies in 

 his close (as he may) he has a possessory property in 

 them so long as they abide there; but if they run into 

 the land of his neighbor, he may kill them, for then he has 

 the possessory property. If A. starts a hare in the ground 

 of B. and hunts it and kills it there, the property continues 

 all the while in B. But if A. starts a hare in the ground 

 of B. and hunts it into the ground of C. and kills it there, the 

 property is in A., the hunter ; but A. is liable to an action of 

 trespass for hunting in the grounds as well of B. as of C.^* 

 But if A. starts a hare, etc., in a forest or warren of B., and 



" State V. House, 65 N. C. 315. And see the opinion in Haywood v. 

 State, quoted in § 14, infra. 

 " Rex V. Rough, 2 East P. C, c. 16, § 41. 

 " I Ld. Raym. 250. '» So in the civil law. See Gai. II, § 67. 



