CHAPTER XXV. 



THE LAWS RELATING TO PIGEOXS. 



NUMEROUS laws relating to the protection of pigeons in dovecotes have been 

 enacted from time to time. At the present period, according to Oke's 

 "Handy Book of the Game and Fishery Laws," 1863, 



" It is larceny at common law (i. e., simple larceny, punishable on indictment) 

 to take house doves or pigeons, being fit for food, when reclaimed and reduced 

 into possession, as in a dovecote, or shut up in their boses every night ; and, 

 indeed, also when tamed, although unconfmed, with free access at their pleasure 

 to the open air (Reg. v. Cheaper, 2 Den. C. C. 361 ; 21 L. J. (N. S.) M. C. 43 ; 

 15 J. P. 301 ; Roscoe's Ev. in Or. Cas., 5th ed., p. 601 ; Arch. Or. PI., by 

 TVelsby, loth ed., p. 276). If the dove or pigeon is not reclaimed, so as to be 

 capable of a felonious taking, then this section will operate ; but if the pigeon be 

 quite ferce naturce, it is not property, and not within this section or the common 

 law. In a recent case (Taylor v. Newman, 32 L. J., N. S., M. C. 186; 8 Law 

 T., X. S., 424 ; 27 J. P. 502), however, it has been held that this section doss 

 not apply where a party, under a claim of right, and after notice to the owner that 

 he would do so, killed a pigeon belonging to a neighbour which was doing mischief 

 upon his own land. In Scotland, the taking of pigeons is theft, and such a 

 defence would not avail the offender (Irvine, G. L. 19). In Ireland, it is also 

 an offence punishable summarily by 10 Will. 3, c. 8, s. 8." 



The case of Taylor v. Newman, quoted above, is the most recent decision of a 

 superior court respecting the killing of pigeons under circumstances that do not 

 amount to larceny ; we therefore think it desirable to give a detailed report of the 



case : — 



COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, 

 Mat 30, 1863. 



(Sittings in Banco, before the Lord Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Blackburn, and Mr. Justice Mellor). 



Taylor v. Newman. 

 This case raised tlie curious and novel question ■whether a man can be convicted summarily 

 and criminally for shooting a tame pigeon, damage feasant. The appellant had been convicted 

 by justices in Susses of " unlawfully and wilfully killing a pigeon belonging to the prosecutor." 

 He had suffered some annoyance and damage from the depredations of the prosecutor's pigeons, 

 and gave him notice that he should shoot them if he found them again upon his land ; and the 

 next time he saw them there he fired at them, and when they rose and were flying away fired 

 again, killing one of them, for which he was convicted under one of the Criminal Law Consoli- 

 dation Acts, the 24 & 25 Vict. c. 9G, s. 23, which enacts that — 



"Whosoever shall unlawfully and wilfully kill , wound, or take any house-dove or pigeon 

 under such circumstances as shall not amount to larceny at common law, shall, on conviction 



