Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1892-01-07
ARGUING THE GAmeLAw.
The Right of a Person to Sell Through q
Agent Game Killed by Himself Upo
Fyia nup prnna,t,

The Right of Person to Sell Through an
Agent Game Killed by Himself Upon
His Own Property.
Mrs. William Berge, of Blackbird
hundred, was before Squire Monaghan
on Saturday afternoon, charged with
exposing to sale eight rabbits in the
Wilmington market without first having
procured the necessary license for the
sale OF the same from the Clerk of the
Peace. The rabbits were killed by her
husband and eldest son. Squire Monag-
han imposed fine of SIS in each case,
making total of $40. Peter J.. Cooper,
Esq, appeared for the Game Protective
Association and Hon. Charles B. Lore
for Mrs. Berge, the defendant.
Mr.. Lore held that Mr.. Berge had a
perfect right to sell the game killed by
himself upon his own property, and
said that the law did not specify that he
must bring this game to market himself
and sell it in person. He could sell the
game through his wife, his son, his hired
man or through any one he employed as
his agent. He held that it was farcial
and absurd for any one to claim that
man who killed game upon his own
place ia season had not right to sell
this game in the market through his
wife OF member of his family. Mr..
Lore held that such law would be the
means OF defeating itself. 1t would be
restrictive OF our rights and no legislator
ever intended to pass law that would
restrict the rights of the people.
He said that when court gave to a
man license to sell Intoxicating liquors
the court did not rule that the man
securing the license must sell the liquor
himself He could dispose of the liquor
by an agent or by any one ne chose to
employ for that purpose. Mr.. Lore said
the cases were precisely identical, and
no one would attempt to say that
saloon.keeper must sell the liquor him
self. The sdme thing is true with a
merchant or store-keeper who secures a
license to sell his goods. He can sell by
his agent, his clerk or any one he has
employed to sell the goods. So it is
with man who kills game upon his
own place. He may sell through his
agent.
Mr.. Cooper, in reply to Mr.. Lore's ar
gument, stated that person killing
game upon his own place, must dispose
OF the game himself. He could not sell
the game through any member of his
family nor through an agent Mr..
Cooper held that game did not belong
to the person on whose property it OK
listed but all game (fera natura) be-
longed to the public. After Squire
Monaghan had announced his intention
to hold the defendant upon the charge
of exposing to sale the rabbits above
mentioned, Mr.. Lore at once signified
his intention of appealing the case to
the upper court. A writ of certiorari
was taken.
Another game case is pending before
Squire Thompson Of Georgetown, before
whom E. j. Richardson and Galloway
Brothers are charged with violating the
game law. In his argument ON Satur-
day, before squire Monaghan, Mr.. Lore
stated that it was the dealers who traf-
licked in game and sold for profit that
the law was intended to reach, and not
the man who killed a few rabbits or
birds upon his own place and sold them.
The hearing Of these game cases is at
tracing attention among the farmers
and members of the game protective as
sociation throughout the State, and it is
stated that number of other suits are
in nIenaratinn.