66 



GAME COMMISSIONS AND WARDENS. 



the production of evidence. Experience has shown the impossibility 

 or extreme difficult}^ of proving" the details of some crimes by direct 

 evidence; hence the provision so frequently found in criminal statutes 

 declaring that certain facts or conditions connected with the subject 

 of the statute shall be prima facie evidence of certain acts that are 

 unlawful or of a violation of law. The effect of the provision is to 

 cast upon the defendant the burden of proving that he is not guilty 

 of the acts charged against him. A review of the game laws of ail the 

 States demonstrates how extensively this provision has been adopted. 

 Were it not so, many violations would remain unpunished. The pro- 

 vision is often inserted in a statute which grants to the person some 

 privilege in derogation of the policy of the State, where it serves as a 

 safeguard against the abuse of such privilege and relieves the State of 

 the burden of proving that the act done or suffered does not come 

 within the privilege. Thus, in South Carolina, while the sale of domes- 

 tic quail is prohibited, imported quail may be sold; but possession or 

 sale of such imported birds is prima facie evidence of violation of law, 

 and the statute casts upon the person handling quail the burden of 

 proving that they were imported. (Acts of 1906, No. 53, sec. 1.) The 

 numerous and diverse acts and conditions which have been declared 

 prima facie evidence of violation of the game laws are shown in the 

 following table: 



What constitutes Prima Facie Evidence of Violation of the Game Laws. 



State. 



Facts. 



Prima facie (or presumptive*) 

 evidence that— 



Alabama . 

 Arizona . . 



California 

 Colorado . 



Connecticut 



Delaware 



Georgia 



Possession of artificial light while hunt- 

 ing. 



Possession of game which does not show 

 evidence of having been taken other- 

 wise than by net, snare, trap, or pound. 



Possession of game which does not show 

 evidence of having been taken other- 

 wise than by net, pound, cage, trap, 

 set line, wire, or poisonous substance. 



Possession of game unaccompanied by 

 proper and valid license, certificate, 

 permit, or invoice. 



Mention of game on menu of hotel, res- 

 taurant, cafe, or boarding house. 



Possession of game in the field 



Pamphlet of game laws and regulations, 

 published by the State game and fish 

 commissioner. 



Possession of quail, partridge, and wood- 

 cock in close season. 



Reception by person or common carrier 

 of quail, grouse, or partridge, and 

 woodcock for shipment in unmarked 

 package or addressed to a point out of 

 the State. 



Possession by trespasser of gun, dog, fer- 

 ret, or fish rod. 



Possession of wild fowl by person who 

 has, at the same time, a swivel or punt 

 gun, or is on the water at night with 

 artificial light. 



Possession of game or eggs of protected 

 birds when arrest made for violation 

 of law. 



* Presumptive evidence. 



Possessor used it in hunting deer. 

 Possessor so took it. 



Possessor so took it. 



It was unlawfully taken and is 

 unlawfully held. 



The proprietor has it in possession. 



Possessor is or has been engaged 

 within a year in hunting it. 



That such laws, rules, and regula- 

 tions are in force in the State. 



They were illegally taken by 



possessor. 

 They were killed in the State for 



purpose of export. 



Possessor intends to hunt or fish 



on the land. 

 They were killed by such person 



with such illegal devices, and 



of unlawful hunting. 



Law has been violated. 



