Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1896-04-11
PETIT MENAN CASE.
Decision of Great Interest to
Our Maine Sportsmen.
Chief Justice Peters Affirms the De-
cision Of the Lower Court
Filming Man for Killing Deer in Close Time
on Petit Menan.


mnnrt,nt o,,;,ion woe b.raaa down
| 60
| i'''i' '''' ID" court '"oaS. II "aS
drafted by Chief Justice Peters and the
document is one that will be of special
;,terost "a .,s,,o, ,rh,o,a, ,,a
..'
courtesy Vi zen ona'ieS ha'ni'h' re-
porter of decsionsl for the supreme
| court, the journal is able 10 present il
j., fu1 - tic raaaors Il c,,to,,...
State VS.. Parker. Peters. G. J. The
| respondent was complained of for KILL
! ing a deer in close time. and the cues
| tinn Of his liability ito be prosecuted
fhetef"i is presented TO this court rn"n
| the following statement Of facts agreed
10 by The parties;
he respondent had in his posse S.
sion at Stenben. in Washington county.
ON june u. 1921, parts u a deer which
| said respondent killed On June q. 1891.
| being IN clos" season, 70 wit: between
n" first day Of January and the first
day Of October in the enclosed deer
| park on Petit Manan Point, in said
Steuben; said park being the property
| of the Petit Manan Company. so called.
and SAID respondent being the owner
of ane-fiffh nf The deer in said ia,dy in
! c,p,,,,,, vim ..,id cn,,,,on,.. ya,d ~.
-. .5..,...,-. -. -
, VS. ''"sii "iiNt' nv u =" '"N'i' va
township no. ~, NJ. -, by Charles
HaYcuck in the month of Iune 1Ss<
b.i.,r the ,loen e.-oeoo nc aforesaid
,c,. ID 1r., -, -. =,
'''' @"i' nay ~ 7'it H"i" N'Ni nv
ipll"Wfn% year AFTER ms capture, L"
Horace +. Wiley OF Cherryiieid by
whom il was kept until the month of
N,,o,nba,. isqo ,,.ba,, NO cold WILEY.
80, :, =, ~, IT,, ..,,,,,,,,,. ,,,,. 49,.
9'i" II ~ 'ii' ""iu ieHi'i'i'i'' "H' t"eii
put ii into the park aforesaid in COM
pany with other deer therein confined
and was in his possession continually
,,,u l-i,l.a h, ~, ,as,,o,l.,, "a. ,.,.
-, ~, ~ -. 50
Sdla' ne respondent WAS drftSt"i ny
Game Warden Charles |. CoriSS. and
on the fifth day of July. 1894. was ar
raianad heforc Jacoh n Caunheu
~, , t,.;al i,,,ioa ~ ana o., n,id
- -" - - CIV -, n"'''
washington county at sald cherry
field. on complaint of said Corliss,
charging said respondent with having
IN his ,ossassion 81 cta,,h.n runa "a
700, 80 ,e...,,,, 49, - .,. ,.;,,1,
i'''' "i'' NV "'''' pAi' "a :" ".S' H'iN"
IN close time as aforesaid. Whereup"n
said respondent waived examination,
was found guilty by the magistrate
and sentenced to pay a fine of $40 and
costs. from which sentence respondent
appealed The law court to affirm or dis
affirm the decision of said magistrate. as
the law and facts in the case warrant"
The respondent contends upon the
strength of the cases of Allen Y. Young.
III Main. 50. James Y. Wood. ~ Maine.
173. and State Y. Beal - Maine. 2S9.
that the deer was so far within his do
minion and control in open time as TO
have become his absolute property, with
which he could at any time do as he
pleased. The doctrine of the above cases
has been lately emphasized somewhat by
the decision of the court in State V. Buck
man, IS Maine 3S5. in which il has been
distinctly held that. under our statutes.
one who lawfully obtains the ownership
of game in open time, in that case car
eases of deer, is not criminally liable for
having the same in his possession in close
time afterwards. Some of the states have
decided that laws which do make such
act criminal are not constitutional. but
that question did not arise in the case
referred to.
We think however. that. giving the
respondent the fullest scope of protection
which the doctrine of those cases can
afford him. he fails TO find them any
sufficient Justification for his act We
refer TO the act of killing the deer within
close season, waving now all question OF
illegality in capturing the animal alive
originally.
Probably If would not he Questioned
that in narticuIar instances forao nnturac
may he 80 far reclafned ana aomesti
corcd mr. If nor reclaimed may he so
closely suhiected 10 confinement bv n
nerson as TO he regarded ms unler his
dominion and control and 10 become his
nronertv And if cnptured or obtained n
n prouer season and in a lawful man
ner there might he no reason why s,,ch
nerson ehoiild nor control such Dronertv
,t an seasons ms he might at any other
subject. however. to any restraint anon
The use of The same which may he i'm
noscd bv our game laws.
Hut we rhink that a proper construction
of fine statute apnIicable TO the facts i'm
me ease at bar does not admit of n con-
elusion that The deer in olIesion was
under such dominion and control of The
RESPONDENT and his associates AS to allow
them to.kill or hunt such animal i'm
close time. Their so-called possession
was not actual and complete enough: was
more fictitious than real. The deer was
roaming wildly over a park covered
mostly bv woods. as was stated when The
ease was reported containing between
ZOO and S0o ncrrs of territory. ana sur
rounded on ali sides by the sea excepting
M n narrow striD or neck connectinr
this an almost natural park with thc
main land And artificial struct,lres arc
placed aS &c 'nlS rJeN th 10 prevent ,he