riAPTUEE, ETC., IN THE CLOSE SEASON. 565 



are similar decisions in Ohio,** California,*^ and Minne- 

 sota.*^ 



On the other hand, it has been held in many of the States 

 that the prohibition of the statute extends only to the posses- 

 sion or sale of game unlawfully captured or killed. In Mass- 

 achusetts the statute is directed against "whoever takes or 

 kills any woodcock, etc., or sells, etc., any of said birds," and 

 possession is made prima facie evidence to convict. It was 

 held that this did not prohibit having in possession and 

 selling within the close time game lawfully killed in another 

 State, and the court said: "Saying that possession shall be 

 prima facie evidence necessarily implies that it shall not be 

 conclusive; if the mere possession of birds during the time 

 within which the taking or killing of them is prohibited of 

 itself constituted an offense under the previous sections of 

 the statute, to say that such possession should be prima facie 

 evidence would be superfluous, if not absurd." *^ 



In Michigan the statute contains a similar provision as to 

 prima facie evidence and the decision in Com. v. Hall, supra, 

 was followed. "The articles interdicted are articles of food, 

 and the interdiction is not because such food is unwholesome, 

 and, therefore, detrimental to the public health, but the whole 

 end and object of the legislation is to protect and preserve 

 game in the State of Michigan." *<" 



In Pennsylvania the statute prohibits killing or exposing 

 for sale or having possession of game "after the same has been 

 killed." The court said: "What does the word 'same' here 

 refer to? Clearly, the antecedent game, the killing of which 

 had already been prohibited." It was held accordingly that 

 the sale during the close season of game killed in another 

 State did not come within the statutory prohibition." 



'" Roth V. State, 7 O. Cir. Ct. 62, affirmed in 51 O. St. 209. 



" Ex parte Maier, 103 Cal. 476. 



'-' State V. Rodman, 58 Minn. 393. '° Com. v. Hall, 128 Mass. 410. 



" Peo. V. O'Neil, 71 Mich. 325. 



" Com. V. Wilkinson, 139 Pa. St. 298. 



