Case Name: DIETERICH v. FARGO
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1907-05-10
Citations: 104 N.Y.S. 334
Docket Number: 
Parties: DIETERICH v. FARGO.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 104
Pages: 334–341

Head Matter:
(119 App. Div. 315)
DIETERICH v. FARGO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
May 10, 1907.)
1. Game—Protection—Power of Legislature.
The Legislature, for the purpose of protecting wild game, birds, and fish within the state, may prescribe the method by which such protection is to be accomplished, and for this purpose may prohibit the possession and sale in the state during the closed season of game killed and purchased in another state, as well as game killed within the state.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 24, Game, §§ 2, 3.]
2. Same—Transportation of Venison.
Forest, Fish, and Game Law, Laws 1900, p. 24, c. 20, § 8, as amended by Laws 1906, p. 1337, e. 478, provides that deer or venison killed in the state shall not be transported from or through any county, or possessed for that purpose, except that one carcass or part thereof may be transported from the county where killed, when accompanied by the owner, that no person shall transport more than two deer in any one year, and that deer killed within the state shall not be accepted by a common carrier for transportation from November 19th to September 30th, etc. Held, that such section applied to domesticated as well as wild deer, and prohibited an express company from transporting during the open season carcasses of deer which had been kept in a private preserve, when not accompanied by the owner.
Lambert and McLaughlin, JJ., dissenting.
Appeal from Special Term, New York County.
Suit by Charles F. Dieterich against James C. Fargo, as president of the American Express Company. From an interlocutory judgment sustaining a demurrer to the complaint, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
See 102 N. Y. Supp. 720.
Argued before PATTERSON, P. J., and McLAUGHEIN, HOUGHTON, SCOTT, and LAMBERT, JJ.
John A. Garver, for appellant.
Carter, Ledyard & Milburn, for respondent express company.
John K. Ward, for forest, fish, and game commission.

Opinion:
HOUGHTON, J.
Plaintiff's complaint alleges that he maintains a private deer preserve in this state at Mill Brook, in Dutchess county, consisting of about 2,400 acres, securely fenced, within which he placed some years ago several "domesticated" deer purchased by him, without this state, and that they have rapidly increased in number, and to such an extent that, in order to preserve his herd, it is necessary for him to kill annually a considerable number of bucks, and that he desires to sell their carcasses to produce a revenue for maintaining, such preserve, and that there is no proper means of transportation to the New York market, which is the principal one, except through the defendant express company, and that during the open season for the killing of wild deer he tendered to the defendant for such transportation several carcasses of such deer, which the defendant refused to receive and transport, on the ground that by so doing it might violate the provisions of the forest, fish, and game law of the state, and the relief asked is that the defendant may be enjoined from refusing to transport such carcasses upon tender of charges, provided the same shall be plainly marked as deer raised in confinement and killed in the plaintiff's private preserve.
The defendant demurred to the complaint, on the ground that it stated no cause of action, and such demurrer was sustained. No contention is made that such an action would not lie in any event, and the sole question presented is whether or not the receiving and transporting by defendant of more than one deer carcass, killed by plaintiff from his herd, unaccompanied by the owner, would be a violation of section 8 of the forest, fish, and game law. Laws 1900, p. 24, c. 20, as amended by Laws 1906, p. 1337, c. 478. We think it would, and that the demurrer was properly sustained. That section provides that deer or venison shall not be transported by a common carrier or possessed for that purpose, except during a prescribed open season, when one carcass or a part thereof may be transported from the county where killed, if accompanied by the owner. The term "wild" is not used in the section, and the plaintiff's contention is that such word should be implied, and that, when so read into the law, it does not apply to deer killed in his preserve, because they are "domesticated" and reared in captivity, and belong to himself to do with as he may choose. The contention of the defendant is that the Legislature had the right to prohibit or regulate the public transportation of the carcasses of all deer as a means of protection to wild deer, and for the purpose of restraining their wholesale slaughter for the public markets. However honest and law-abiding the plaintiff may be, it is manifest that a construction as contended for by him would open the door to an easy evasion of the law which the Legislature has properly enacted to prevent the promiscuous killing of wild game. While the plaintiff's preserve is not situated in that portion of the state in which wild deer abound, in order to evade the law, it would be only necessary to establish a private preserve in the heart of the Adirondacks and kill wild deer promiscuously, and represent to the express company that they were killed in the preserve, and thus secure their transportation in quantity to the various markets. It is true that this could not be done without practicing a fraud upon the express companies; but it is fair to assume that the Legislature restricted the transportation of the carcasses of all deer, whether killed in captivity or killed in a wild state, for the express purpose of preventing such fraudulent imposition, to the end that no one might be exposed to the temptation of thus killing wild deer for market. That the Legislature, for the purpose of protecting wild game, birds, and fish within the state, has the right to establish the open seasons in which certain kinds may be taken, and to prescribe the manner and limit of such taking, as well as to prohibit other kinds from being taken at all, is unquestioned. The method which shall be employed to afford protection to wild game is necessarily within the discretion of the Legislature, and to that end it may prohibit the possession and sale in this state, during the close season, of game killed and purchased in another state (People v. Bootman, 180 N. Y. 1, 72 N. E. 505; People ex rel. Hill v. Hesterberg, 184 N. Y. 126, 76 N. E. 1032, 3 L. R. A. [N. S.] 163), or the sale at any time of game killed in this state as well as game killed in another state, except under certain prescribed conditions. Forest, Fish, and Game Law, Laws 1900, p. 27, c. 20, § 27, as amended by Laws 1905, p. 611, c. 335, § 43a, as amended by Laws 1906, p. 1458, c. 534, § 1; People v. Weinstock (App. Div.) 102 N. Y. Supp. 349; People v. Stillman (App. Div.) 102 N. Y. Supp. 351.
Eor the better protection of the game of this state, the Legislature has prescribed that it shall not be taken with intent to transport or be transported without the borders of the state (Forest, Fish, and Game Law, § 38, as amended by Laws 1904, p. 1406, c. 580, § 8); and that trout shall not be transported in this state except when accompanied by the actual owner (Id. § 60). These provisions, which cannot be deemed unreasonable, have as their object the better protection of the fish and game of the state. Confessedly, one of the best means of preventing the illegal taking of fish and game is to deprive the pot hunter and pot fisher of a ready market. If he has no market, the temptation to take illegally is largely removed. The most effective way of depriving him of a market is to deprive him of means of transportation. This the Legislature has attempted to do by prescribing that common carriers shall not accept for transportation carcasses of deer, except one, and that accompanied by the owner. In so doing, we are of opinion that the Legislature intended to prohibit the transportation of the carcasses of all deer, whether wild or "domesticated," even if such a term can be applied to such an animal, which is very doubtful. In our view, it is no answer to say that the deer belong to the plaintiff, and are his absolute property. Grouse and woodcock killed in another state and purchased there by a resident of this state belong to the purchaser, and by the same reasoning he could possess them and sell them in this state, either during the open or the close season. This court has recently held that it was a violation of the game law to offer for sale in this state English pheasants hatched, reared, and killed in captivity in the state of New Jersey. People v. Waldorf-Astoria Hotel Company (App. Div., decided March, 1907) 103 N. Y. Supp. 434. The sale of such birds could not harm our own wild pheasants, except indirectly, in that it opened the door to fraudulent claims that birds actually killed in this state had been bred and killed in another. In the same way the permitting of the shipping of carcasses of deer except in the prescribed manner offers temptation to claim that deer killed in a wild state had been bred in captivity..
The complaint, in our opinion, asks that the defendant be compelled to do an illegal act, and hence it states no cause of action.
The interlocutory judgment should be affirmed, with costs, with leave to the plaintiff to amend, if he desires, on payment of costs in this court and in the court below.
PATTERSON, P. J., and SCOTT, J., concur.