Crim184-1

*See:* Case history

## Judgment: Crim184-1j

Rex v. Delenn
Crim 184-1d

*This opinion was forumlated with the amicus assistance of several interested and concerned citizens of the realm. Their input is greatly appreciated.*

FACTS: Isildur was in the act of killing the monster Violte. While
in the process, Delenn entered the room and killed the monster
claiming it was her kill. Delenn alleges that she had previously
attacked the monster and left only to replenish her food stores;
that Violte was substantially incapacitated at the time that she
left; that Ilsidur was attempting to steal the kill from her; and
that her act of killing Violte was a good faith attempt to complete
an attack she had already begun. Ilsidur alleges, inter alia, that
he had substantially weakened Violte; that he was about to kill
Violte when Delenn unlawfully interfered with his actions and
received the benefits of the kill; that Delenn stole or otherwise
misappropriated a kill that was clearly her own.

DISCUSSION: The precise issues in this care are as follows:
First, whether an individual who begins to kill a monster obtains a
property interest in the eventual killing of the monster such that
it may be misappropriated or stolen by another individual. Second,
whether an individual who interferes with the killing of a monster
with the intent and purpose of obtaining the experience and benefits
for herself has committed an act for which criminal liability may
obtain.

The litigants in this case and the amicus briefs indicate that this
is clearly an important issue in this realm. It cannot be denied that
one whose kill is stolen from him at the last minute feels wronged.
But does it follow that a crime has in fact taken place? This issue
presents a problem that is capable of interpretation as either a
criminal or a civil violation. Sable does not have an official
system for adjudicating civil disputes between individuals and so
this court has jurisdiction over this problem if and only if this is
a criminal matter.

For the reasons below, I find that it is not a crime for an individual
to interfere with and take credit for a kill already begun by another.

The common law tradition, from which we develop our laws, has addressed
this problem. In Pierson v. Post (The Realm of New York, 1805), the
court considered the following: Whether a person who with his own
hounds starts and hunts a fox on uninhabited ground, and is on the
point of seizing his prey, acquires such an interest in the animal,
as to have a right of action against another, who in view of the
huntsman and his dogs in full pursuit, and with the knowledge of the
chase shall kill and carry him away? The court concluded that
the act of merely pursuing the fox with the intent to kill it did
not bring it within the property interests of the person in pursuit.
The fox is an animal ferae naturae, and a property interest does not
obtain to an individual until he has killed it and possessed it.

The facts here are similar to Pierson. Ilsidur's "pursuit" of
Violte was his attempts to kill. During battle, there is every
possibility that the beast may not die, in which case the fighter
will have nothing at all to possess. It is only once the beast is
killed that the killer reaps the spoils of that kill. It is only
at that point that a possessory interest obtains and only at that
point that a possessory interest may be unlawfully interfered with.
Until the monster is actually dead, another individual may lawfully
interfere in the fight, just as a fox who is pursued by one individual
may be suddenly seized at the last moment by another.

This opinion applies only to the narrow issues stated. There is
no decision made as to whether the last minute taking of a kill started
by another creates in the harmed individual a right of retaliation.

All charges against Delenn are dismissed. No Crime.

Judge