The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1897-08-07
RATTLESN AXE OWNERS.
Miss Frances Jolliffe and
Ray Taylor Are
Rivals.
Society People Have Playful Con-
tention Over Trophy of
the Chase.

Miss Frances Jolliffe. society belle Of
this City, has had very interesting dis
cussion in regard to the ownership OF q
rattlesnake hide, and it became necessary
to refer to high judicial authority in order
| to settle the question even so far as 1t re-
! lated to possession, leaving the matter OF
| ownership still in allegiance.
The contention arose in this way: Miss
| Jolliffe while walking on Siegler Noun
tain near Siegler Springs saw rattle
snake. She tried to kill it, but found her
efforts of no avail, so she called to her as
sistance Ray Taylor, young gentleman
acquaintance, who killed the rattlesnake
will a shotgun.
Then the young man claimed that the
snake belonged to him because he killed
it, and the young woman claimed it be-
longed to her because she discovered it,
she contending that he sim ply assisted her
to reduce it to possession.
Judge J. Y. Coffey of the Superior Court
OF this City happened to be at Siegler
Springs at the time and was appealed to
for solution of the difficulty. His Honor
dec ined TO seriously consider the propo-
sition, but calamity gave the weight of
his opinion on the side of Miss Jo,liffe,
saying that there were nine points in her
favor, it appearing that she had the
snakes skin nailed 10 the side of the wall
in her apartments. He cited the tenth
and well-acknowledged potent factor in
litigation, namely, that the fair claimant
ii young lady.
Mr.. Taylor did not readily acquiesce in
the justice Of this view of the case, but up
to the present time no litigation has been
commenced to ecure judicial determine
ton of the issue. Of course, it is under
stood that if such suit should be insti-
uuted in the City and County O San Fran
cisco Judge Coffey would be disqualified
from sitting in the case or participating In
the decision.
| Several gen tlemen learned in the law
have taken the trouble to look up the ques-
! ton, ana these barristers say that 1t APP
| pears from an examination OF the authorl-
ties that they are a unit on the PROPOSE
ton that wild animals, or animals feI8
nature, belong to no one as lon2 as they
are in tteir wild state, and property in
| them Is ACQUIRED by occupancy only.
Merely pursuing and wounding wild ami
mails will not vest the property until they
are actually secured.
A very strong case illustrating this
| principle is found in the New York re-
ports, where the plaintiff while fishing
cast seine around a shoal of mackerel,
with the exception of a small opening
| which the seine did not quite fill up. and
/
1t was held that plaintiffs possession was
not com lete so as to enab BILE him to main
| tain an action for trespass.
Now, therefore, it would seem from the
above authorities that the young woman
| did not by her own acts acquire prop
erty i'll the snake, and that she could only
rest her claim on the ground that she en-
! ployed the young man to kill the snake
Tor her. aid In that case there seems to be
! no good reason why the snake should not
belong to her. In that event he would
have claim for services to be settled on
| the basis of quantum meruit.
Counsel for the lady will strenuously
| insist that Mr.. Taylor simply acted as her
agent. and that though he actually and
| physically reduced the snake to subiec-
ton, yet he acquired no property in The
fruits of the chase. At first 1t was
thought to base the lady's claim on the
right OF discovery, but the controlling de-
cisions of the New York Supreme Court
cited compelled an abandonment OF that
position.
1t may be added that Miss Jolliffe still
retains possession of the trophv.