Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-03-31


TO SAIL AROUND OR STOP NEAR
A CITIZEN WHO IS CUNNING OR
FISHING IN CURRITUCK SOUND
AND TRIBUTARIES, FOR THE
PURPOSE OF DAMAGING SUCH
SHOOTING OR FISHING, is
VALID.
Gallop was convicted of a misdemean-
or and appealed.
The case appears from the opinion of
the court
The court says:
The evidence is that the decoy, where
the ducks were invited and expected to
alight. were Tied out in the sound"
But, even had they been in the lead"
that. according to the evidence, would
have been one of the tributaries of
the sound" within the language of the
act. The sole question, then, Is as to
the constitutionality of the act under
which the defendant, employed by the
adjacent landowners for the purpose OF
interfering with duck hunting by
others on the sound or one of its tribu
taries on the water front opposite their
land. is indicted for preventing duck
hunting there by the prosecutor. The
evidence states that the boat of the de-
PENDANT was mot on the clubs pro-
perty," so the prosecutor, who was still
further out was not a treSpaSSer, and
liable as such; but. had he been him.
self liable to indictment for trespassing,
that would have been no defense to the
defendant for acts avowedly done for
the purpose of interfering with the
prosecutors hunting upon 1.-The sound
or one of its tributaries" and not
merely to procure his removal from
premises on which he was treSpaSsing.
The defendant left his sail fluttering,
so no ducks would come, and said he
was employed to do it. The shooting
club. which employed the defendant
for the purpose of breaking up or dis
couraging duck hunting on the sound
and it's tributaries on their water front,
1t was stated on the argument, bought
the land for the purpose of enjoying
such hunting themselves, and doubt
less deem it hardship that they can
not keep off others. The ownership of
game is in the people OF the State,
and the Legislature may withhold or
grant to individuals the right to hunt
and kill game. or qualify or restrict
1t, as in it's opinion will best subserve
the public welfare. No one has proper
ty in animals and fowls, denominated
game" until they arc reduced to pos
session. The shooting club owned the
adjacent shore. but they could have no
property rights in the wild ducks,
which came like the wind, whence they
would, and went where they listed.
The landowners had no right to pre-
vent their settling in the sound to the
lure of the prosecutors decoys, and
the statute made it a misdcmcanor 10
prevent them.
At common law. title to game was IN
the king with us now, in the sovereign
peoplc). and no one could hunt game,
even on his own land. without n fran
chise from the sovereign. Wild game
within n State belongs to its people in
their collective sovereign capacity. 1t
is not the subject of private ownership
except when some express statute con-
fers st. With us. landholders can keep
others from hunting on their land. not
by virtue of their ownership of the
game, but from their rights to keep
trespassers off the land, or by express
statutory. enactment. The Legislature
has constantly asserted the States
sovereignty by prohibiting the own
ers of land. equally with others, from
hunting or fishing at certain seasons.
or by certain methods. or-for a certain
number of years, and as to some ami
TITis or fowls ut anytime.
The Legislature was within it's power
when 1t forbade any one to interfere
with amy citizen cunning or fishing
in Currituck Sound or its tributaries,
to keep them from shooting" etc.
Affirmed.