CATS. 35 



Commrs.J. . . . With this great weight of authority against 

 Mr. Chitty's single dictum, I have no hesitation in giving it 

 as my opinion that a person may have a property in a cat and, 

 therefore, that an action will lie to recover damages for killing 

 it. There may be circumstances under which it would be 

 justifiable to kill a cat; but it is not justifiable to do so merely 

 because it is a trespasser, even though after game. These 

 facts alone were not sufficient, in my opinion, to justify the de- 

 fendant in killing it." 



13. Miscellaneous Beasts — Deer in a park are the subject of 

 property, as has already been said. Deer in an enclosed 

 ground have consequently been held distrainable for rent. 

 Willes, L. C. J., said : "Th*e reason given for this opinion in 

 the books why they are not distrainable is that a man can have 

 no valuable property in them. But the rule is plainly too 

 general. . . . The nature of things is now very much altered 

 and the reason which is given for the rule fails. Deer were 

 formerly kept only in forests or chases or such parks as were 

 parks either by grant or prescription and were considered 

 rather as things of pleasure than of profit; but now they are 

 frequently kept in enclosed grounds which are not properly 

 parks and are kept principally for the sake of profit and there- 

 fore must be considered as other cattle. ... As to their not 

 being chattels but hereditaments and incident to the park, and 

 so not distrainable, several cases were cited: Co. Litt. 47 b. 

 and 7 Co. 17b.; where it is said that if the owner of a park die 

 the deer shall go to his heir and not to his executors. ... I 

 do admit the rule that hereditaments or things annexed to the 

 freehold are not distrainable; and possibly in the case of d 

 park, properly so called, which must be either by grant or 

 prescription, the deer may in some measure be. said to be in- 

 cident to the park ; but it does not appear that this is such a 

 park, nay, it must be taken not to be so." ^^° 



"° Davies v. Powell, Willes 46, 48. 



See § IS, infra, as to inheritance in deer. 



