134 INJURING AND KILLING ANIMALS. 



The killing of wild vermin in defence of property is not gov- 

 erned by the tests of imminent danger and of the duty of re- 

 treating to the wall that are applied in cases of homicidal de- 

 fence. This was held, where the defendant killed four minks 

 that were pursuing his geese, and a statute prohibiting the de- 

 struction of certain fur-bearing animals between certain 

 months was considered not to be applicable where such de- 

 struction is an exercise of the constitutional right of protect- 

 ing property. The court said: "It was for the jury to say, 

 considering the defendant's valuable property in the geese, 

 the absence of absolute property in the minks, their char- 

 acter whether harmless or dangerous, the probability of their 

 renewing their pursuit if he had gone about his usual business 

 and left the geese to their fate, the sufficiency and practica- 

 bility of other kinds of defence — considering all the material 

 elements of the question, it was for the jury to say whether 

 the danger was so imminent as to make the defendant's shot 

 reasonably necessary in point of time. If, but for the shot, 

 some of the geese continuing to resort as usual to the pond 

 apparently would have been killed by these minks within a 

 period quite indefinite, and if other precautionary measures 

 of a reasonable kind, as measured by consequences, would 

 have been ineffectual, the danger was imminent enough to 

 justify the destruction of the minks for the protection of prop- 

 erty. ... To hold, in this case, that the geese should have 

 been driven away from their home would be equivalent to 

 holding that they should have been killed. The doctrine of 

 retreat would leave them a right to nothing but life in some 

 place inaccessible to minks, where Hfe might be unremunera- 

 tive and burdensome. ... As against the minks, they had 

 a right not only to live, but to live where the defendant chose, 

 on his soil and pond, and to enjoy such food, drink and sani- 

 tary privileges as they found there, unmolested by these ver- 

 min, in a state of tranquillity conducive to their profitable 

 nurture." ''* 



" Aldrich v. Wright. 5.3 N. H. 398. In Taylor v. Newman, 4 B. & S. 



