14 WILD ANIMALS. 



to put the offenses on the same footing. Now that the state 

 of the law has by this case been brought to Hght, it is to be 

 hoped that it will not be long before it receives a necessary 

 amendment, so that the protection which the criminal law 

 now affords masters from the depredations of their servants 

 may be extended to such cases as these, where the servants 

 are gamekeepers and the subjects of their depredations their 

 masters' game." *^ 



In another case the defendant was employed to trap wild 

 rabbits, and it was his duty to take them, when trapped, to the 

 head keeper. Contrary to his duty, he from time to time 

 trapped rabbits and took them to another part of the land and 

 placed them in a bag, intending to appropriate them to his 

 own use. Another keeper observing this, took some of the 

 rabbits out of the bag during the defendant's absence and 

 nicked them, in order that he might know them again, and 

 restored them to the bag. The defendant afterwards took 

 away the bag and the rabbits. It was held that the act of the 

 keeper in nicking the rabbits was no reduction of them into 

 the master's possession so as to make the defendant guilty of 

 larceny.** 



If one, not qualified to kill game, kills it accidentally, he 

 cannot take it away without subjecting himself to a pen- 

 alty.^o 



No absolute right of private property exists in game birds 

 even when they are killed at a lawful time. The ownership 

 is in the people of the State and a private person can have 

 only such an interest as the legislature dictates, and may be re- 

 stricted from selling them or shipping them for purposes of 

 sale.^' And the possession of an animal arising from an 

 illegal capture is no ground for an action against one releas- 



" 64 L. T. 222. 



" Reg. V. Fetch, 14 Cox C. C. 116. 

 ™ Molton V. Cheeseley, i Esp. 123. 



"Amer. Expr. Co. v. People, 133 111. 649. And see Garcia v. Gunn, 

 119 Cal. 315. 



