PIGEONS, DOVES, PHEASANTS, ETC. 21 



is property and the subject of larceny, and the decision in 

 Reg. V. Cheafor, ... is that it is larceny to steal pigeons if 

 reclaimed, although unconfined. It was not so clear on prior 

 authority and the matter may still be arguable, though the 

 better opinion of the judges in Dewell v. Sanders, Cro. Jac. 

 490, 492, was that there was no property in such pigeons." ^® 



It has been said that "doves in a dove-house descend to- 

 gether with the house to the heir, but the young ones that 

 are not able to fly out belong to the executor; however, it 

 seems that this rule could hardly apply to boxes merely hung 

 on the outside of another building. Probably such of the 

 doves as would descend to the heir would not be considered 

 the subject of larceny, upon the same principle that the steal- 

 ing of charters and even the box that contained them was no 

 larceny at common law." *" As illustrating what is here said 

 about the boxes, it has been held that if pigeons are so far 

 tame that they come home every night to roost in wooden 

 boxes hung on the outside of their owner's house, and one 

 steals them out of the boxes, this is larceny.^^ 



It has been held that doves are not the subjects of larceny 

 unless in the owner's actual custody — e. g., in a dove-house 

 or when in the nest before they are able to fly. "The reason 

 of this principle is that it is difficult to distinguish them from 

 other fowl of the same species. They often take a flight and 

 mix in large flocks with the doves of other persons and are 

 free tenants of the air except when, impelled by hunger or 

 habit, or the production or preservation of their young, they 

 seek the shelter prepared for them by the owner. Perhaps 

 when feeding on the grounds of the proprietor or resting on 

 his barn Or other buildings, if killed by a stranger, the owner 

 may have trespass, and if the purpose be to consume them 

 as food and they are killed or caught or carried away from 

 the enclosure of the owner, the act would be larceny. But 



" Taylor v. Newman, 4 B. & S. 89, per Blackburn, J. 



"" Bac. Abr., "Executor," H. 3. "' Rex v. Brooks, 4 C. & P. 131- 



