REWARDS TO INFORMERS. 75 



to ship venison out of the State, and another for shipping venison to 

 market. In New Jersey one defendant was sentenced for 10 days for 

 illegal possession of a blue jay, and another 10 days for killing one 

 partridge. In North Carolina one defendant was imprisoned for 30 

 days for hunting on lands in Davidson County without permission, 

 [n Oregon one offender received a sentence of 12^ days for trapping 

 >eaver, and two others were committed to jail in default of payment 

 i fines for killing deer out of season. (Yearbook U. 8. Dept. 

 Agriculture, 1906, pp. 535-536.) 



COSTS. 



A general statute in some States requires individuals instituting a 

 prosecution to give security for costs. The object of the requirement 

 is, of course, the protection of officers of the courts against loss of 

 their fees by acquittal of the defendant, and for the additional pur- 

 pose, in many cases, of forestalling ill-advised and unfounded prose- 

 cutions. To relieve wardens of the necessity of complying with this 

 requirement it is customary to insert in the game act a provision mak- 

 ing such exemption, which is illustrated by the following statute from 

 the laws of Montana: 



The State game and fish warden, the deputy game and fish wardens, and the spe- 

 cial deputy game and fish wardens, may make complaint and cause proceedings to 

 be commenced against any person for violation of any of the laws for the protection 

 or propagation of game or fish, and in such case he shall not be obliged to furnish 

 security for costs. (Laws of 1901, H. B. 147, sec. 16. ) 



Pennsylvania has a special statute imposing the costs of prosecu- 

 tion under the game laws upon the county, in cases in which action 

 is brought in good faith by any officer whose duty it is to protect 

 game and birds, and the defendant is acquitted or for any legal cause 

 fails to pay the costs (Laws of 1903, p. 213). 



REWARDS TO INFORMERS. 



Under early game laws almost the only provision for enforcement 

 was the reward offered by the State of a part of the fine, com- 

 monly known as a moiety, to the informer. These statutes rarely 

 omitted this provision, but with the advent of game wardens the 

 practice has gradually fallen into disuse, and at the present day is 

 retained in the game laws of comparatively few States. a It was 

 never a success in this country, most men preferring to see the laws 

 violated rather than appear as prosecuting witnesses against their 

 fellow-citizens. Aside from sentiment, such a course was often 

 hazardous to the property and even the life of an informer. There is 



a Several of the counties of Maryland still adhere to the practice. Further details 

 are contained in the table on page 37, showing the special disposition of hunting 

 license fees and fines. 



