Jttly 28, 1881. 



FOREST AND STREAM. 



513 



FOREST AND STREAM GAME TABLE 



OPEf SEASONS. 



The seasons, 1b which It Is lawful to shoot game In the several 

 States scut Territories, open as designated in the following table. 

 Except the Minnesota pinnated grsuse season, which closes Oct. 1, 

 none of the seasons named close betore Nov. 1, 18S1 : 



This is in harmony with State v. Mary Turner, 66 N. C. 



ents.'' 



State!;. Deer. 



Oct. w. 

 Julyl.. 

 sept. l. 



JUa.« 

 Call. 

 Col t ... 



r;oiin .. 

 Dakota 

 Del-' 

 D. C, 



Manor Aug. l. 



Kan. .J 



K.V.... Sept. 1. 

 !-a Aug, I.. 



Me,*... Oec i- . 

 Mass-. .IB&V. I . 

 Waeiuc. Oct. 1.. 

 Minn ..Nov. I . 

 MlB! a i 



Nev..* 

 M. lie. 

 IV. .T..f\ 

 N. .Mex 

 N. V. ,, 

 N. 0. * 

 O..,,.. 

 or 



July*., 

 ■inly!.. 

 July to. 



Sept, 1.. 

 Aug. 1 .. 



Allt.l .. 

 •inly 4... 



Sept. ir,. 



Sept. !.".. 



Prohttl 

 dot. I... 



,M ik ir,.. 

 Nov. [,.. 

 Nov. 1... 

 on. l .. 

 sept. 1 . . 

 oct. i . . 

 Nor. 1... 



OCT. I.. 



Nov. 1 . 



Oct. 511 , 



sepi. in 



'oct. c r >. 

 |Nov. 1. 



Sepia I . 

 '•-pi., ir, 



aled 



t.'roe.Sfi 



(/',', Llli.J 



Cl.kk- 

 en). 



SCI it. >■■ 



Oct i... 

 Oct. !.., 

 Aug. I.". 

 Xov. 1 . 



AUg. 1.. 



Oct. 1... 



■Nov. 1 . 

 Oct. I.. 



OCt» 1.. 



Xiig.'ia 



Sept. i 



■'.;•■■ i 

 Aug. la 

 .M'PI.1 



Sept. l . Ii'roh'ea 



Sept. I. ....... 



Oct l.Jootl.i 

 sept.i.' 



AUg. 16 Sept. 1. 

 Sciit. 1. NOV. 1. 

 '" Oct. 1.. 



July J... 1 Oct.. IB. 



Sept. 1 

 Nov. 1. 



OCt. ].. 



sept, i .. 

 Sept.. 1. 

 I sept. i.. 



bct.'is'.'.l 

 Auir, 15..' 



Sept. I.. 

 Sept. l.. 



Nov. 1 . 

 Sept, 1.. 



sept, t 



Sept. 1. Oct. 1., 



.sept l 



— iWi-pi. jr, 



.lulyf . 

 ipr. 1. 



I)t. ;r- 



uly'to': Aug. 



. 1. 

 sept. I 



gept, S5 



Sept. 1.5 

 Sept.. 1 . 

 Sept. 10 



Sept. i. 

 Aug. I. 

 Aug. i.. 



Sl'llt. 1 



Aug. IS 



Nov. 1 . 

 July 1 . 

 Oct. l.. 



.... Sept. 3 . 



Sept. l 



Oct, i . 



St pt. ! . 

 Aug. 1.. 



Sept. i 



Sept, 1 



Nov. 1. 



in". ... 



Aug. 1.., 

 -Vpt. 1. 1' 

 Aug. 15 



S.-'pi. 

 Sept. 



sapt, i. ( 



Antelope.— Co\. t se.rjt. 1 ; Idaho, Aug. 1 ; Neb., Oct. 1 ; Nev., Aug. 1 ; 

 N. Mex , Kept. ! ; rtaii, attg. i ; Wye Aug. 15. 



ftvfalo Colo., Sept. J ; Neb., Oct. 1 ; N. Mex., Sept. 1. 



OttnZwo.-'Me., Oct, 1 : N. H., sept, 1 <•. 



flow.— Ala., Aug. 1 : t'al., July 1 ; Ga., Oct. 1 : Kan., Aug, 1 ; Miss., 

 Sept. 15; MO., Avg- 1 jH C, Oct. 1 ; S. ( ., Oct, 15. 



Htk.— Cola., Sept. 1: Idaho, Aug 1; Winn., Nov. 

 -., Aug. 1 ; N. Mex., Sept. * 



A 



>,.— Me.. Oct 1 ; N. H., Sept 1 e; Ore., July 1. 

 Mounta'n .sZuc/,.— Col., Sept. 1 ; Neb , Oct. i ; Nev.. Aug. 1; N. Mex., 

 sept, j : tun... wg. I ; W70., Aug, i" 



flneer.—l}. C, Sept.. t ; ile., Aug. 

 n.. Aug. 1 ; Pa., July IB ; It. I., All;,. .. 

 flail.— Del., S'-pv,. 5 ; N. ,T„ Sept. ; Pa., Sept. 1. 



JfwrfSri'rf.— Del., Sept. fi; 1). C, Sept. 1 ; N. J., Aug. 25 ; Pa,, Sept. 1. 

 ifnijK.— Dakota, Aug. 1-5; D. C, Sept, 1 : Nev., Sept. 1 ; N. C, Oct. 16 



';' Mo., Aug. 1 ; Nov., Sept. 1; N. 



618. Mary 

 value of fivi 

 in North, Carolina 

 the offense, hut w 

 giving. Mary ha 



"dieted for stealing "one turkey of tl 

 1 Thus it stems 'that turkeys are cheap 

 The report does not disclose the date of 

 infer that it was shortly bef ore Thanks- 

 ng been convicted, a motion in. arrest of 

 judgment was made upon the ground "that the indictment 

 was" insufficient, for that, it failed to state that the turkey 

 stolen was a tame turkey. That the turkey was a native 

 fowl of America, large numbcis are found in every part, of 

 the State, wild and unreclaimed, and that the indictment 

 should have negatived 1 he presumption that the turkey in 

 question was wild and unreclaimed." 'I he motion was sus- 

 tained, but this was reversed by the Supreme Court. The 

 court said : "Bis honor was mistaken in this case, in sup- 

 posing thai our domestic turkey is a creature of ferm natural. 

 All the authorities cited by his honor are cases of creatures of 

 ferm nature, and we lake the case to lie clear, that where 

 a creature, for the stealing of which a defendant is indicted, 

 is /me naturae, it will not bo sufficient to allege that the 

 property was of the goods and chattels of one A. B., the 

 owner; "in such ease, the indictment must further allege that 

 the creature was dead, tamed, confined or reclaimed. 8 RllSSi 

 on Crimes, 152. But surely this cannot be the case, when 

 the defendant is indicted for stealing one of our domesticated 

 turkeys. In 2 Bish. Crim. Law, §§ 787, 788, speaking of 

 animals, ft i 'ffl natitra, and of which larceny may be com- 

 mitted w'lien reclaimed, the author says, 'domestic animals 

 and fowls, such as horses, oxen, sheep, hens, peafowls, tur- 

 keys and the like, which being tame in their nature, are the 

 subject of larceny on precisely the same grounds as other 

 personal property.' " 



The following animals have been held "wild:'' Deer, rab- 

 bits, hares, conies, fish, rooks, doves, pigeons, martens, bees. 

 Whart. Crim. L,, §869. In Warren v. State, 1 Green (Iowa), 

 100, it is said : "As this principle applies, by common law, 

 to monkeys, bears, foxes, etc., it will evidently apply Lo 

 'coons.'" 



But such animals as are reclaimed and confined, and may 

 serve for food or use, are subject of larceny. Thus, young 

 pheasants hatched and reared by a lieu. B. v. Shicklc, L, 

 K., 1 C. C. 158. Marked swans, even on a public river. 

 Dalt. .lust. 156. Pea-hens. Com. v. Bearunn, 8 Gray, 497. 

 Pigeons in a cote. 11. v. Clieaford, S Cox's 0. C. 367. In 

 this case Lord Campbell said: "The pigeons were the sub- 

 ject of larceny, although they had the opportunity of getting 

 cut and enjoying themselves." This is probably because of 

 the animus reveTtendi in the birds. 



In Swan v. Saunders, Q. B. Dry., 44 L. T. (N. S.„) 424, it; 

 was held that freshly imported parrots were not "domestic 

 animals," within the statute of cruelty" to nniraals. The 

 court said : "I do not say that a parrot might not become a 

 domesticated animal, when thoroughly lamed and accus- 

 tomed to the society of human beings, but these were young 

 unacclimatized birds freshly imported into England. They 

 are clearly different from fowls and other poultry, and the 

 evidence goes t, prove that they were not tamed and domes- 

 ticated." 



In regard to fish it is not so clear. All the books agree 

 ti..,. u- li.u. <x.-. ; . eonfuiejl in a hup* or otherwise, so that they 



.i quail 



c in uppei Penlusulai ■ seas,oa opens Aug. 15. tfCalltoi 



ptoLCcict ::.i ">': . e Iii r..r,5 ,.vni i.t v 'lei r aeasori opens .aye. ,. , 

 and LiiMiicu. *ep., 1. / Vl i st open vrondeoet: reason began July ;• 

 will close Aug. i. ..? Qimii snooting pniiiiniveil to Nov. 1,18S2, incoun- 

 tlesof Montgomery, Schenectady. Saratoga and AUaitiv. Wildtow] 

 oeason on Loee Islatoj waters opens Ota. :. AVre,ae.,ok mhihoio- h 

 Dutchess Gonnty r/raDlfolted oaring August, A Dier law relates to 

 fiunale deer only. 



LAECENY OP ANIMALS. 



[From the Albany Law Journal, June i, 1881 ■] 



IN Rixn. Mann., Supreme Court of the Hawaiian Islands, 

 April, 1881, the defendant had been convicted of steal- 

 ing turkeys. Two questions arose : whether the turkeys in 

 cjuestion were "wild animals," and thus not subject of lar- 

 ceny; and whether ownership had been proved. The court, 

 Judd, J., said : " The essential facta are as follows : On the 

 mountain rauge of this island, back of Waialua, called the 

 Waiaiuc mountains are numbers of turkeys. These birds 

 were brought to this country so long ago that there is no re- 

 membrance existing as to the exact lime when or by whom tbey 

 were imported. These birds are now in a wild "state, afraid 

 of man, breeding in the unfrequented parts of the mountain 

 and bush country, and have been hunted down and caught 

 by devices, precisely as if they wcre/<?ra natural. They are 

 not penned or fed, marked by the land-owner, nor does he 

 exercise any actual control over them, except as he may be 

 able to catch them and reduce them to his posses-ion. It is 

 well known that the domestic turkey is descended from the 

 wild turkey, first found in America, modified by breeding 

 and the cue of man, and Ihis perhaps accounts for the ten- 

 dency to revert to the wild state which is so strongly" mani- 

 fested in them. These turkeys, although 'wild,' are not, 

 properly speaking, 'wild animals.' "Whore the phrase 'wild 

 animals' is used, the word 'wild' is , used as a generic term to 

 indicate that they are of a species not usually domesticated, 

 and does not refer to their comparative docility or familiari- 

 ty with men. We consider lhat these turkeys are no', prop- 

 erly speaking, ferm natural, though partaking of their habits. 

 The land on which the defendant is alleged to have taken the 

 turkeys iu question is the land of 'Mokulua,' in Waialua, the 

 property of the prosecuting witness, Caspar Silva, who claims 

 the ownership of the turkeys by virtue of their being on his 

 land anil of value to him. Now to say that these turkeys are 

 A.'s solely because they are on A.'s land, would lead to the 

 absurdity that they would become B.'s when they went on 

 to B.'s land. Suppose on a certain night, A. goes into the 

 woods on his own land and ensnares part of a flock of the 

 so-called 'wild turkeys,' and the rest of the flock, being dis- 

 turbed, crossover the boundary to the land of B., aud the 

 next night A. ensnares them on B 's land. On Ihe theory ad- 

 vanced, that the place of capture determines the ownership, 

 t ! ie latter taking would be larceny". In the case before us, 

 if the owner of the land where the alleged taking of the tur- 

 keys took place was able to trace them, \as the undisputed de- 

 scendants of birds owned Ivy him or his grantors, he would 

 thus show tit le to them. So far from Ihis being the evidence 

 in this case, it is more than probable that these turkeys are 

 not the descendants of a paren ( t stock introduced on this 

 land by one person, but that these birds have received ac- 

 cessions at different times from the tame turkeys of many 

 different individuals. In the absence, therefore, of proof of 

 ownership of these turkeys by the prosecuting witness, aside- 

 frorn the fact that they were caught, on his land, and it being 

 proved that they cannot be distinguished from any other 

 turkeys on contiguous lands, they are not the subjects of lar- 

 ceny." Conviclion reversed, and prisoner discharged. 



"•PI . 

 -. "Pish 

 but how, 



admit of 

 ular ctses 

 Fost. 



may be taken at the pleasure of 

 ated them, then they are the suhjoe.t of larce: 

 confined in a net or tank are sufficiently secured 

 in a pond, is a question of doubt, which seems 

 different answers, as the circumstances of pari 

 differ." 2 Bish. Cr. L., § 085 ; 1 Hale's P. O. 

 Cr.L. 366. An English statute made it indiciable to steal fish 

 from a river in any inclosed park. In a ewe "when: the 

 defendant had taken fish in a river that ran through an in- 

 closed park, but it appeared that no means had been taken 

 to keep ikeflsh within that part of Ihe river that ran through 

 the park, that they could pass down or up the river beyoud 

 the limits of the park at their pleasure, the Judges held that 

 this was not within the statute." Bex v. Corrodice, 2 Buss. 

 1,199. 



Oysters planted and s'aked out where they do not natur- 

 ally grow come within this rule. Slate v. Taylor, 8 Dutch. 

 117. They seem, however, bare'y to come within Ihe de- 

 scription of animals. In the last case the court said : "The 

 principle, as applied to animals ferm iiatimc, is not ques- 

 tioned. But oysters, though usually included in that de- 

 scription of animals, do not come within ihe reason or oper- 

 ation of the rule. The owner has the same absolute proper- 

 ty iu them that be has in inanimate, things or in domestic 

 animals. Like domestic animals they continue perpetualiy 

 in his occupation, and will not stray from his home or per 

 son. Unlike animals fene nrit.urai they do not require to be 

 reclaimed or made tame by art, industry, or education, nor 

 to be confined in order to be within the immediate power of 

 the owner. If at liberty, they have neither the inclination 

 nor the power to escqie. For the purposes of the present 

 inquiry they are obviously more nearly assimilated to lame 

 animals than to wild ones, anil perhaps more nearly to in- 

 animate objects than to animals of either description. The 

 indictment could not aver that the oysters were dead, for 

 then they would be of no value ; nor that they were re- 

 clamed or tamed, f oi in this sense they were never wild, 

 and were not capable of domestication : nor that they were 

 confined, for that would be absurd." Iu Flee: v. liegeman, 

 14 Wend. 43, the court said : " Oysiers have not the power 

 of locomotion any more than inanimate things, ami when 

 property has once been acquired in them no reason is per- 

 ceived why they should not be governed by" the rules of law 

 applicable to inanimate things." " They have, teen reclaimed, 

 and are as entirely within his possession and control as his 

 swans or other water fowd lhat, may float habitually in the 

 bay." But in C iswell v. Johnson, 58 Me. 1G4, oysters were 

 held to be fish. 



At common law the rule of property in reclaimed wild 

 animals excluded many which were called "base," princi- 

 pally because they are not fit. for food. But in this country 

 the rule seems to be more flexible. Thus, in State v. House, 

 65 N. C. 744; S. C. Am.Bep. 744, a conviction of larceny 

 of an otter from a trap was sustained. The court said. "All 

 the distinctions as to animals farm natune, and as to their 

 get- .arras rr has:, natures whbh we find it the. English 

 books, will not hold good in this country. The English sys- 

 tem of game laws seems to have been established more for 

 princely diversion than for use or profit, and is not at all 

 suited to the wants of our enterprising trappers. We take 

 the true criterion to be the value of the animal, whether for 

 the food of man, for its fur, or otherwise. We know 

 that the otter is an animal very valuahle for its fur, and we 

 know also that the fur trade is a very important one in 

 America, and even in some parts of North Uarolira. If we 

 are bound absolutely by the English authorities, without re- 

 gard to their adaptation to this country, we should be obliged 



to hold that most of the animals, so valuable for their fur, 

 are not the subject of larceny, on account of tiie baseness of 

 their nature, while at the same time we should be obliged to 

 hold that hawks and falcons, when reclaimed, are the. sub- 

 ject of larceny in respect of their generous nature and cour- 

 age." 



Dogs are generally held not the subject of larceny, being 

 "base:" State v. Holder, 81 N. C. 527 ; 8. C, 31 Am. Bep. 

 517; Slate v. Lymus, 26 Ohio St. 400; S. O,, 20 Am. Kep. 

 722: Ward v. Slate, 48 Ala. 161 ; S. C, 17 Am. Bep. 31. 

 But otherwise, when they are taxed. People v. Maloney, 1 

 Park. 593; Mayor v. Meisrs. 1 McA. 53; S. C, 29 Am. Bep. 

 part.e"Cooper, 3 Tex. Ct. App. 480; S. C, 80 Am. 

 Harrington v. Miles, 1:1 Kans. 480; S. C, 15 Am. 



: la: 



Hep. 15 

 Eap. 35 



It has 

 cass is f. 

 ai'is 



always been held that any dead animal, whose car- 

 t for food, or use, is subject of larceny; but the query 

 whether a dead aud stuffed dog is subject, of larceny in 

 . ,_ Slates where a live dog is not. Probably the expense 

 of the stuffing would bring it within the rule. So a dead dog 

 may be better than a live lion. 



June 18, 1881. 

 e on Larceny of Aui- 

 I iu the Birmingham 

 , of which is given in 

 The title of the case is not 



From the Albany Lai 

 In connection with our ret 

 mals should he reatl a cai 

 (Eng.) County Court, May 

 Ihr-/ Law Times of May 28. 

 given. The question was of property in carrier pigeons un- 

 der training. The Court thus stated the case : "The plain- 

 tiff, who is"a dealer in pigeons of this description, was train- 

 ing the bird, and it. was "for this purpose that on the day in 

 question he had taken it from its home at Aston to Castle 

 Bromwtch, a dislance of between five and six miles, and 

 there turned it loose, in the expectation that the pigeon 

 Wpuld find its way back to its home at Aston. In reluming, 

 as was believed, to its home, and while Hying in tlat direc- 

 tion over land which the defendant occupied at Castle Brom 

 wieh, the defendant shot at aud killed the pigeon. The 

 questions for consideration are-. First, whether the plaintiff 

 can be said to have a property in the pigeon, which was ad- 

 mittedly tame and reclaimed; and if so, then, secondly, wheth- 

 er by the act of taking the pigeon away from its home for the 

 purpose of training it, and there releasing it, the pi ontiff 

 lost his property in the bird aud thereby his right, to bring 

 tli is action to tecover damages for the killing of it by the 

 defendant. Whether, in fact, by releasing it in the manner 

 staterlhe abandoued the property he otherwise would have had 

 in it while in his possession ; in short, whether the pigeon, in 

 consequence of plaintiffs action, lost its character of a tame 

 pigeon aud became, ferm mtlurm." After referring to and 

 commenting on Dewell v. Saunders, Cro. Jac. 490 j Beg. v. 

 Cory, 10 Cox's C. C. 23; Beg. v. Thickle, L. B., 1 C. C. 

 158; Child v. Greenhill, Cro. Cas. 553 ; Beg. v. Brooks, 4 

 C. & P. 131 ; Beg. v. Cheafer, 21 L. J. 43, M. C; Taylor v. 

 Newman, 4 B. & 8. 89, the court thus concluded : "There 

 appears to be a connection between the soil and animals ferm 

 neiturm, so far as the ownership in both is concerned. In an 

 ordinary case, if the owner of a reclaimed pigeon chooses to 

 take it i'rom its home, and set it free on soil that does not 

 belong to him, having no further care or thought, about it, or 

 if the bird escapes, and betakes itself to its natural liberty, 

 this woil'd, I thiuk, amount to an abandonment of the pre- 

 vious reclamation, and it would again become ferm vniurm; 

 but I cannot think lhat what the plaintiff has done in this 

 case, the taking away of the bird aud releasing him for the 

 purpose of training, teaching it ils lesson in short, can 

 amount to an abandonment of his property in the pigeon. 

 This temporary release from the plaintiff's custody for the 

 purpose indicated could never be intended by the plaintiff 

 to be an abandonment of the valuable property he possessed 

 iu the pigeon. The plaintiff was merely following the ordi- 

 nary method of teaching the bird so as to cause it to brconie 

 more useful and of greater value. After the best considera- 

 tion I can give to the matter I have arrived at the conclusion 

 that the property, which the English law r , following the Bo- 

 man in this respect, allows individuals to pessess in pigeons 

 is a special possessory property, a right to have them pro- 

 tected while on the owner's property or under Ivs control. 

 No case that T have found goes so far as to say that the 

 owner of pigeons can have an absolute property in them at 

 all times and in all places. Dewell v Saunders, if correct, 

 decides there can be no such absolute property". If I thought, 

 that the plaintiff by his act had lost the possession or e.ustoelia 

 of the pigeon, his property in the pigeon, in my opinion, 

 would have been gone, and I should have been obliged to 

 decide that this action could not have been maintained ; hut 

 in the present case, for the reasons already stated, 1 think 

 the reclaimed character of the pigeon ought not to he con- 

 sidered as abandoned, but, that it continued notwithstanding 

 the act of the plaintiff, and that being so I hold, for the teas' ins 

 given, lhat the property in Ihe pigeon continued in the owner, 

 and that the plaintiff is 'entitled to the verdict. I have not 

 arrived at this decision without much hesitation and some 

 doubt." "In ancient times the question was by no meaus 

 of the importance it has iu recent, times become. A vast 

 amount of capital, indeed, is now invested in these birds ; a 

 Very extensive traffic iu them is carried on Doth at home and 

 abroad. It. is much to be desired that this important ques- 

 tion, on which so much property depends, should nol remain 

 doubtful, but should be decided by the high court." Theitfw 

 Times thinks "a somewhat dangerous principle is admitted " 

 here. 



From tlie Albany Late Journal, June 25, 1881. 

 The Vermont statute permits nuy one to kill a dog "run- 

 ning at large off the premises of the owner or keeper," with 

 out a collar with the owner's name on it. Iu Wright v. 

 Clark, 50 Vt. 130 j 8. C, 28 Am. Bep. 496, a fox hound, 

 kept for ihe chase, and chained when not iu pursuit of game, 

 was chasing a fox with his owner and one Stone, and while 

 at some distance i'rom his owner, but near and in full view 

 of Stone, was killed by defendant in shooting at the fox. It 

 was held thai the shooting was wrongful, although, as 

 claimed by the defendant, accidmtal, and that the defendant 

 was liable for the value of the clog. The court, spoke thus in 

 praise .of dot's: "The dog is the most tractable of animals, 

 ' aint other than physical. The 

 3 often more potent to restrain 

 often trained so that at his 

 un by and guard his property 



.nd yii 



ldSE 



d look of his master a 

 him than cord or chain. He i 

 rnaster'3 command he will rcn 



for a whole day r iu the absence of his master, or go out. of 

 sight, miles away, and gather in his flocks and herds. 

 Different species have special instincts which render them 

 particularly susceptible to training and restraint in certain 

 directions. The trained hound, when pursuing the fox or 

 deer with or at his master's biddiug, is no more 'strolling 

 Without restraint,' or 'wandering, roving, or rambling at 



