Signal-Copiahan. (Hazlehurst, Copiah County, Miss.) 1885-1888, 1886-07-08
OWNERSHIP OF ANIMALS.
What u Farmer May Claim a. Ills Prop
erty According To the Law.

What Farmer May Claim a. Ills Prop
eriy According To the Law.
The farmer may claim ~ his, not
only the domestic animals about his
dwelling and grazing in his pasture,
but also the doves that inhabil tho dove
cote, the birds that bUild their nests in
the grove and even the un,amcd ami.
mails that burrow in his woodlands.
But he has not the same kind of prop.
crtv In each If these II the Gagged
squirrel ".capc, and the tanned rabbit
\ runs away and returns again, 10 tho
Wild state. they are no longer a distinct
property, but belong to the soil where
they make their habi,ation, lfthcy re-
move To the land If another. in the
same way they are his. But If my
hors. escapes he is still mine. into who-
socvcr possession HI comes.
Those animals which are domestic
ami tame, or are restrained in custody,
have property in themselves, while
thoSn which arr living In wild state
arc simply part of the land where
they are. Tho game which a hunter
stars AMI catches on my land is mine
in chs laws all-Scarching eye, Ii |
take partridge out OF the sowlcr's
,nm, which find in my meadow.
whatever the moralist may think of
my conduct, the law will say have
simply taken my own.
Wild bees in tree belong to the
ownet OF the soil where the tree stands,
but before he has hivcd them his rights
depend simply upon their being upon
his land. Ii they fly away his rights
are gone. Ii one finds bees upon anoth'
er's land and marks the tree, this give:
him no property in the bees nor any
right to the honey; but they belong to
the cwncr Of the soil.
Tue case is quite different, however
when bees have been reclaimed from
tho wild state They then become
property. and il swarm fly from the
hiv. they remain the property OF the
owner so long as he can keep them in
sight and pursue them. In one case
in New York, n swarm of bees went
into tree on land of the Lennox Iron
Company. Their owner had followed
them and kept them in sight. He
marked the tree. Two months after.
ward man named GcT cut the tree
down, destroyed the bees. and took
the honey. The owner of the bees
sued Gotf and recovered damages for
his loss.
In such a case the owner of the land
has no more right to claim the bees
than hs has a right to claim his neigh
boris COW which has strayed upon his
land. or a harness which he finds in
his woods where it was hid by thief
who took it from his neIghbor's car
riage-house. But when the owner is
no longer able to show that tho bees
went from his hive his property Is
gone.
The owner has no right to enteru upon
the land of another in pursuit OF game.
But il Is very ancient law that he may
enter to hunt noxious animals orbeasts
of prey. such as wolves and foxes. The
reason given for the rule which allows
such hunting is because it is of public
advantage. Judge Swift, in his digest
of Connecticut law, says: "A person
may justify the following of fox over
the ground of another If there be not
any further injury committed than il
necessary for killing the fox; but no will
not be justified in digging him out OF
the ground"
The law allowing the hunting of fox
es, but terbidding any injury to the
land. is to the city kennel clubs, with
hounds and horns, but no foxes, like
the right adjudged to Shylock TO cut
his pound Of flesh from oil Antonio's
heart, but torbidding him TO shed one
drop Of Christian plood.-LaWyer
Browning. IN Connecticut State Reports.