LICENSE REQUIRED AND CONSENT NECESSARY 
TO HUNT AND KILL ANY KIND OR 
CHARACTER OF GAME 
The Court of Appeals decided the general debated question 
as to whether license and consent are necessary to hunt ani¬ 
mals not classified as game animals. In the case of Blassin- 
game vs. State from the City Court of Madison, the Court says: 
“1. The primary purpose of the Act of 1911 (Acts of 1911, 
p. 137), is the preservation of the game specified in the Act. 
As incidental to that purpose Section 7 of that act makes it 
unlawful for any person to hunt not only the game enumerat¬ 
ed in the Act but any gam© or other animals not enumerat¬ 
ed, either with or without license, upon the land of another 
without first obtaining the consent of the land owner, 7 ’ # # * 
‘ 4 This Court holds that no kind or character of game, whether 
designated by the act or not, can be hunted without complying 
with the requirements as to license, and without first obtain¬ 
ing the permission of the land owner. 77 # # # “The other ex¬ 
ception is 'persons following hounds in pursuit of foxes or 
deer, or any other animal not mentioned in this Act 7 ; and this 
simply means that where a hunter is lawfully hunting upon 
the lands of another with permission, and, in so hunting, the 
hounds find, upon the lands upon which he has permission to 
hunt, foxes, deer, or any other animal not mentioned in this 
act, and the game is pursued by the hounds, he may follow 
the hounds in pursuit onto the land upon which he has no per¬ 
mission to hunt. 77 
FUR TRAPPING. 
Fur trapping or the sale of furs are not interfered with 
except that trapping is considered hunting and the trapper 
required to pay a hunter’s license and to have the consent 
of the land owner. 
22 
\ 
DECISIONS OF COURTS 
HAMMOND V. THE STATE. 
3813 10 Ga., Page 143. 
1. In the construction of general and special acts, the 
maxim “generalia specialibus non derogant” applies, and a 
general act will be held to repeal or modify a special act em¬ 
braced within the terms of the general act only when the pro¬ 
vision of the two acts are clearly repugnant and irreconcilable, 
or where the provisions of the general act manifest that it was 
the intention of the legislature to enact a general law on the 
subject-matter which should be exhaustive and a substitute for 
every prior general, local, and special law relating to the sub¬ 
ject-matter. 
2. The general law on the subject of the protection of game 
in this State, approved August 21, 1911, (Apts 1911, p. 137), 
was intended by the legislature to be exhaustive of the subject, 
and was intended to repeal all existing general, special, or local 
laws on the same subject-matter. 
Decided November 20, 1911. 
ALLEN YS. STATE. 
3943 11 Ga., Page 75. 
1. In the exercise of the police power of the State, the legis¬ 
lature may prohibit the killing of wild game or any traffic or 
commerce in it, if deemed necessary for its preservation or pro¬ 
tection, or for the public good, and to accomplish this end, may 
make it criminal for any person to sell or offer for sale any of 
such game, or to* have in possession any such game during the 
closed season, whether the game which he sells or offers for 
sale, or has in his possession, was killed or taken within or 
without the State. 
2 Under the terms of the act of 1911, commonly known as 
the “game law 77 (Acts 1911, p. 137) it is unlawful to purchase 
or sell, or offer for sale in this State at any time any of the 
game protected by the prohibitory section of the act, or to 
have in possession any of such game during the closed season 
specified in the act, without regard to where it was killed or 
taken, whether within or without the State. The legislature 
J ’ 23 
i 
