38 WILD ANIMALS. 



the common law not the subject of larceny, when reclaimed. 

 Among the colored people of the South the coon when fat in 

 the fall and winter is regarded as a luxury, and the Iowa de- 

 cision would not be regarded by them as sound law or good 

 taste. . . . Every species of personal property was not the 

 subject of larceny at common law. . . . The provisions of the 

 larceny statute of this State are very broad and comprehen- 

 sive. The first section defines the crime thus: 'Larceny is 

 the felonious stealing, taking and carrying, riding or driving 

 away the personal property of another.' This, perhaps, is not 

 more comprehensive than the common law idea. . . . The 

 reclaimed mocking-bird in question was no doubt personal 

 property. . . . To hold that larceny might be committed of 

 the cage but not of the bird would be neither good law nor 

 common sense." ^^^ 



In an article on the Report of the Royal Commissioners 

 on the Criminal Code, after considering the various reforms 

 needed, it is said : "This subject illustrates the importance and 

 necessity of a speedy codification of the criminal law, which 

 some ignorant persons still hold to be quite unnecessary. 

 There could then be no doubt that canaries could be the sub- 

 ject of theft; now we think there is little doubt they can- 

 not." ^^^ But a tame canary bird is, of course, the subject of 

 property.^^* 



Trover will lie for a parrot without saying it is reclaimed.^ ^^ 

 With regard to certain parrots alleged to be cruelly treated 

 the court said : "I do not think these birds were domestic ani- 

 mals within the statutes cited. I do not say that a parrot 

 might not become a domesticated animal when thoroughly 

 tamed and accustomed to the society of human beings, but 

 these were young, unacclimatized birds freshly imported into 

 England. They are clearly dififerent from fowls and other 



"' Haywood v. State, 41 Ark. 479, 482. ''" See 17 Ir. L. T. 10. 

 "^ Manning v. Mitcherson, 69 Ga. 447. And see extracts from the opin- 

 ion in § I, supra. 

 '" Grymes v. Shack, Cro. Jac. 262. 



