666 GAME LAWS. 



The same interpretation has been given to the statutes 

 of Maine," Maryland,*^ Oregon," Ontario,*^ and Quebec.** 



It was held in Maine that where the plaintiff captured a 

 moose at an unlawful time he had no action against a game 

 warden who without process liberated it. The court said: 

 "Suppose a hunter has his rifle levelled at game in close time 

 and some one shoves it aside so that the game is missed. 

 Shall the hunter have damages? He has only been pre- 

 vented from continuing a criminal act. Suppose lobsters 

 illegally taken are thrown overboard alive. Is he who does 

 it a trespasser? Shall the taker of them have damages for 

 his illegal catch? Or suppose one lands a salmon in violation 

 of law and a bystander, while it is yet alive, throws it back 

 into the water. Shall the fisherman have the value of the 

 salmon that the law forbids his having at all? When game 

 is killed it absolutely becomes property, but when taken alive, 

 only conditionally so; for when released, property in it is 

 gone. So long, then, as the possession of live game is illegal, 

 qualified property in it is illegal also, and the releasing of 

 such game interferes with no legal right or title of the person 

 illegally holding it captive." *'^ But in the same case it was 

 held that where the plaintiff had purchased a deer in close 

 time and it was not shown to have been unlawfully captured, 

 he might recover against a game warden for taking it away. 



In Massachusetts, however, it was held that the fact that 

 the possession of one having rabbits for sale was unlawful did 

 not prevent his maintaining an action for their wrongful 



" State V. Bucknam, 88 Me. 385. " Dickhaut v. State, 85 Md. 451. 



" State V. McGuire, 24 Oreg. 366. 



" Davis V. McNair (Can. Gen. Sess.), 21 Cent. L. Jour. 480; 7 Crim. 

 L. Mag. 213. 



"Shewan v. Dnimtnond, 35 Low. Can. Jur. 113. 



" James v. Wood, 82 Me. 173. 



The possession of only one moose in the open season is not sufficient 

 evidence of its illegal capture to throw the burden of proof on the defend- 

 ant: State V. Lynch, 89 id. 209. As to a complaint charging the illegal 

 possession of dead game, see State v. Thomas, 90 id. 223. 



