Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1891-12-17

The Question Whether n Farmer Car
Sell Game Killed by Himself on Hi

The Question Whether Farmer Can
Sell Game Killed by Himself on His
Own Farm.
On Saturday afternoon Clifford Nerves, n
farmer of Newark, was fined $40 and costs
by Squire Monaghan for selling brace of
rabbits and partridge in the King street
markets contrary to the game laws of the
State. The game was shot by James
Proud, the father-in-law of Mewes,
The story Of the arrest of Mr.. Moves by the
agent of the Game Protective Association,
has aroused the greatest interest among
the farmers of New Castle county. Many
of them stoutly denounced the assocja-
ton and claim that the law is unconstitu-
tional.
"What kind of law is it," they ask,
THAT dares to prevent man selling the
game he shot himself on his own farm?'
Peter Cooper, Esq, is counsel for the
Game Protective Association, and Lilburne
Chandler, Esq. for Clifford Mewes. The
latter counsel was seen by reporter this
morning.
He says he does not think it necessary
in this case to argue the constitutionality
of the act under which Clifford Mewes was
arrested. of course that would he the nat
ural point to attack, but counsel thinks it
not necessary to raise this question in the
lower court, as the proper place to test the
act would be on certiorari in the higher
court.
The facts are that Clifford Mewes' father
in-law, a farmer living in Red Lion hun
drcd, shot brace of rabbits and par
fridge on his own farm and sent them to
Wilmington, asking his'son-in-law, Mewes,
to sell them for him. Mcwes is an inno-
cent agent, without compensation, or the
bargain or the expectation of such.
The law states that man may sell game
lawfully killed by himself. Following are
the words of the act, tSeCtion &, chapter
5o7, Laws of Delaware, Vol. XV1l);
But any person at any and all times during
inc period when .o,,,,', killing OF the birds
within the limits Of tho county where such
person shall reside any of the said birds or
animals which such person may have himself
lawfully killed.
Now the legal killing is not disputed.
The question is OH the unlisCensed sale
and exposing for sale. The phrase mot
prohibited in the extract is conceded to re-
fer to the close season prohibition. The
shooting and selling was not done in close
season.
1t is understood that the Game Protcc-
tive Association Is putting forward the
literal wording of the law which says
that it shall be unlawful for any person
sell or to expose for sale" unless he has a
license except as provided above.
The claim of the prosecution then is
that Moves did sell or expose for sale
game not killed by himself.
Counsel on the other hand claims that
the whole scope of the act must be applied
in such case as this. The evident inten-
ton of the Legislature in passing the law
was to attack the unlicensed traffcker or
game dealer, and clearly not to restrict the
land owner or farmer, or his direct agent,
in selling game killed by himself. The law
says he may sell and does not restrict that
act to the farmer himself in his own per.
son, nor does it restrict the manner of sale.
| According to the rendering of this law
| by the Game Protective Association in this
case farmer cannot send by his hired
| man or farm hand brace of rabbits to
market, which he shot himself OH his own
land in the open game season, and sell
them unless he first procure a license.
Mr.. Chandler will appeal his case to the
| superior court. 1t is understood that there
are some 80 other cases to be tried or are
depending on the results of this decision.