The record-union., 1896-09-28
A TRESPASS is UNLAWFUL.
Judge Buckles Strange Decision Has
Been 0Yerruled.
The Supreme Court Declares That
Lessees of Inclosed Lands
Have Rights.

When Judge Buckles of Solano
year ago decided that the lessees OF IN
closed land could not prevent lre9pa70
thereon by hunters general surprise
was expressed. The case was appeaieu
by the club, and now the Supreme
Court has reversed the Buckles oeci9
Ion and ordered a new trldi. Ahe
"Chronicle'' states the facts as Iolio"e'
Charles w. Kellogg, President ana eA-
ecutiVe officer of the COrdelld Olootiii6
Club, in behalf of the members u lhal
organization, leased quantity oI iaiio
In the marshes near Sulsun, III ooidho
County, for the purpose or shootlhs
wild water fowl. Fences were put
around about 5000 acres, ponds were
made, arks constructed for the accom-
mediation of the members OF the clup'
In fact, several thousand dollars were
spent in improvements on the grounds.
Between 400 and 500 notices warning
persons against trespassing were
posted around the grounds, and per-
sonaI service of such notices was made
by the officers of the club on persons
found hunting on the preserves.
This notification did not have the de-
sired effect, and the club was con-
stantly warning with poachers. Presi-
dent Kellogg commenced action against
some of the SpaSsers-William King
and about forty others-and the Supe-
rior Court of Solano County gave de-
cision against the club. From this de-
cision the club appealed, and the Su-
preme Court has reversed the decision
and ordered a new trial
The plaintiff set out in his allegations
for a reversal Of the copy of the lease,
which recited the preservation by the
lessor of the right to pasture the lands,
and the covenant of the lessee that the
grounds should be used for the sole pur-
pose of hunting game thereon, and
promising and agreeing that the total
number of persons who might be di-
rectly or indirectly authorized to hunt
over or on the premises during the term
of the lease should not exceed forty.
The respondents met this provision of
the lease in very unique answer. They
said that the lease provided for forty
persons of the club shooting on the res
ervation and that all game over and
above the amount shot by that forty
was anybody's game, and when the
the respondents claimed the right Of
anyone to hunt thereon.
The court, through Justice Van
Fleet, says: "Manifestly the lease is
open to no such construction. The res
ervation of the pasturage in no way
affects or initiates against the exclu-
siveness of plaintiffs rights in the
premises as a hunting preserve, which
the lease clearly contemplates; and the
reservation Of the number who shall be
permitted to hunt obviously has in
view the preservation of the premises
as a resort for wild game, and that its
value in that respect may not be entire
" destroyed during the lease by the
admission of an unlimited number OF
hunters
None. of the hedefendants had attempted
10 show that they held any privilege
or license from the owners to hunt on
4he premises. The court says: Inc
conclusions Of the court below would
seem to proceed upon the theory that
there is no such thing as an exclusive
private ownership or proprietorship IN
wild game beyond such as may be ac-
duired by reducing it TO actual possess
sion by killing or capture, and that Tor
that purpose 1t may be pursued ana
taken wherever it may be found This
view of the law is incorrect. The Wlld
game of the State, ii is true, belongs
to the people in their sovereign capa-
city, and it is not subject to private do
minion to any greater extent than the
people through the Legislature may see
fit to make it.
But the Legislature has seen fit to
prescribe the limit where public pro-
prietorship ends and that of the indl-
yidual commences and when within the
provisions Of this statute, an indi-
vidual is as much to be protected in the
enjoyment of his rights in this species
Of property as in any other under the
law. While these wild birds are within
the plaintiffs inclosure he has under
the statute such rights in them as enti-
tie him to protect them from invasion
by those not authorized to be there.
and any person violating those rights is
as much n trespasser as though enter
ing unbidden the plaintiffs dwelling"
The appeal was one in which the
court could only upon reversal order
new trial, but the decision is Of such
nature and lays down the rights Of the
club so distinctly that the lower court
will be obliged to give Judgment for the
plaintiff. which Will have the effect of
closing game preserves TO all except
members Of the club leasing them.
The case is not without local interest,
as there are number Of clubs in Sac
ramento the members of which have
leased grounds for duck-shooting pur-
poses. All of these club members are
persons who can spare but one day in
the week from their work, and they like
to have some place where they can go
with a reasonable prospect of bagging
a half-dozen or a dozen ducks.