20 WILD ANIMALS. 



But it was held in a Scotch case that reclaimed bees re- 

 main the property of the owner only so long as he is pursumg 

 them where he is entitled to go and that, if they come upon 

 another person's land, that person is entitled to prevent pur- 

 suit on his land and becomes the owner of the bees if he hives 

 them." 



Bees in the possession of the owner are the subjects of 

 larceny.'^ And so is honey whether made by wild or re- 

 claimed bees.'^^ Otherwise of wild bees that have not been 

 hived, though they are confined in the tree by the owner of 

 the land.^* And it does not slander a person to charge him 

 with having stolen a "bee tree," that phrase having reference 

 to the wild, unreclaimed insect and a standing tree, neither 

 of which is the subject of larceny.^^ But where the defend- 

 ant said "Thou hast stole our bees and thou art a thief," it 

 was held that the latter words showed that the stealing was 

 of bees of which felony may be committed, and were, there- 

 fore, actionable.'^* 



9. Pigeons, Doves, Pheasants, Partridges, Swans. — Larceny 

 cannot be committed of old pigeons out of the house ; other- 

 wise of young pigeons in a nest, or of old ones confined.'" 

 Where they are kept in an ordinary dove-cote, having liberty 

 of ingress and egress at all times by means of holes at the 

 top, they are the subjects of larceny.''* But in a later case it 

 was said : "There has been considerable doubt upon the ques- 

 tion whether a pigeon living in a dove-cote when flying about 



" Harris v. Elder, 57 J. P. 553. 



"2 East P. C. 16, § 41; State v. Murphy, 8 Blackf. (Ind.) 498. 

 As to the interest of one who finds bees on another's land, see State v. 

 Repp, 104 la. 305, cited supra. 

 " Harvey v. Com., 23 Gratt. (Va.) 941. 

 " Wallis V. Mease, 3 Binn. (Pa.) 546. 

 " Cock V. Weatherby, 5 Smedes & M. (Miss.) 333. 

 " Tibbs V. Smith, T. Raym. 33. 

 " 2 East P. C. 607; I Curw. Hawk. 149. 

 " Reg. V. Cheafor, 2 Den. C. C. 361. 



