Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1896-02-15

killed, or destroyed, or any part thereof
at one time and selling the same at retail
in omen season to his local customers
The court further says:
The object of the statute is to prevent
the defamation Of game by limiting the
time when it may be taken or killed II
the months of October, November, ard
December, in each year. During these
months. under certain restrictions unim
portant here, deer, moose, and caribou
may be lawfully taken or killed, and the
various provisions of the statute aim 10
compass this result. They do not intend
to interfere with foreign game, dead or
alive. brought within the State at am
time, or with game lawfully taken or
killed here While the enactment by its
letter, makes the possession of more than
one moose, two caribou, and three deer a
any time an offense. the context of it
must not be overlooked in determining
the scope and meaning CT the Who'll
statute. But one penalty for killing
having in possession, and transportin 2
could have been intended, and that APP
plies to the Illegal capture of the game
The other provisions were intended to
aid in the enforcement of that one, by
making the possession evidence of Illegal
capture. and compel the person charged
to explain his possession of what would
directly point to an illegal taking of the
game. In other words, compel him to
have or handle game Illegally taken or
killed by any person at his peril. Game
Illegally taken or killed subjects the pos
SCISSOR of it to the penalty for its illegal
taking, just as if he had illegally taken
it himself.
This Interpretation best COMFORTS with
the true intent and purpose of the statute
and works out reasonable and just ap-
pljcation of its provisions, at the same
time obviatiDg various difficulties in the
way of a different construction of it.
Nor is this view without authority In
Allen VS.. Young, IS Me. so, it was held
that, although this very statute pro-
hibited the transportation Of the hide or
carcass of deer moose, or caribou. during
close time, yet, such transportation wos
not illegal If the game had been lawfully
killed.
The Michigan case is cited, mich. H.
1928, People VS.. O'NeiD which was "a case
where prosecution was brought against a
marketman for having a lot of quail in
possession, after the close time limit. and
on which the court decided that as the
birds were legally killed, it was not
violation Of law, to have them in posses
sion. In neither of these cases was the
question raised regarding the right to
have game in excess of what the law
prescribed.
In that case the judge who drew the
opinion, said Il do not think it would be
competent for the Legislature to punish
the possession of game which was law
fully captured or killed. Having become
private property, it cannot be DESTROYED
or confiscatcd, unless it becomes unfit for
use. any more than any other property
can be destroyed
1t does not follow that the court of
Michigan, would have adopted this view
nor is it certain that the court of Maine
take this view, simply because it was
quoted in connection with this case.
1t cannot be questioned but what this
opinion of the court strikes serious blow