ceive, by the Common Law, much of the evils originating in the present system of the Game Laws may be ultimately removed.

"Upon mature consideration of the premises, your Committee have come to the following Resolution :

"Resolved-That it is the opinion of this Committee, that all Game should be the property of the person upon whose lands such Game should be found.

"26th June 1816."

:. The Committee have not resolved, that Game is the property of the person on whose land it is found, but should be his property.

This is a very vague and indefinite expression; it is difficult to say, whether the words “should be” refer to moral propriety or expediency, or political propriety or expediency, or whether from legal principles it ought in all cases to be so decided by the Courts of Law. Upon the last construction of the words, I hope I have abundantly proved, that in all cases it has been so decided; and therefore, we may confidently conclude, that in all future cases it will be so decided.

If all Game belonged to the King, then he might give up his right, as far as it still remains in himself, to be disposed of by Parliament for the good of his subjects.

Or, if there was no property in Game, but it was common to all, then the Parliament, as the representative of the people, or the organ by which they declare their will, might be justified in giving it to every land-owner, in order to render it most productive of general good.

But God forbid that a thought should ever be indulged that the Parliament should take a valuable right from one subject, and transfer it to another, without his consent, or without restoring him a full equivalent.

The justice of Parliament ought ever to be as boundless as its omnipotence.

CHAP.

CHAP. VI.

WHAT KIND OF PROPERTY IS GAME?

ALL property, by the law of England, must either be real or personal property. Every thing fixed or moveable, which any Englishman can call his own, must either have the qualities of real property, or the qualities of personal property.

Wild animals may be said to be the adjunct or appurtenance of property. The adjunct of personal property must be personal property, as the wool of a sheep, the milk of a cow, the hair of a horse's tail, and the quills of a goose; all which, if any one steals, he will be guilty of petty or grand larceny, according to the value which is taken at one time.

But Game, or wild animals, before they are killed or taken, must, I think, be considered like growing corn, trees, fruit, and roots, as real property, or part

of

of the inheritance. They will law; they savour of the realty.

pass to the heir at

But when they are separated from the

killed, or taken, they are then realty, and have the qualities of corn reaped, or grass mowed, trees cut down, fruit plucked from a tree, or roots, as potatoes or carrots, dug up. It never was felony, by the Common Law, to steal any of these at the time when they were separated from the freehold after they were separated, they then had all the qualities of personal property. They pass to the personal representative; trover may be brought for them; and they are the subjects of larceny. If I have shot a hare in my orchard or field, or a wild duck upon my pond, there seems to be every reason that I should have the same remedy, both criminally and civilly, against him who comes afterwards to take them away, as I should have against him who, under the same circumstances, comes to take away the fruit I have shaken from my trees, or the roots, as potatoes, turnips, &c. which I have dug or pulled up in my garden.

If a man comes to take earth-worms, or dewworms from my grass-plot, he would take part of the realty; but if I have collected so many, and had them secure in a pot, so that they might be sold to anglers for a considerable price, it cannot, I think, be doubted, but I should have the same

remedy

remedy as if he took or stole any other personal chattel of the same value.

Can then trover be brought against a man who comes upon another's premises, and takes and carries away a live wild animal resting and abiding there? The law, I conceive, will be the same, whether the animal is a fish, bird, quadruped, or reptile.

It has lately been decided, that trover may be brought against one who cuts another's corn and carries it away; but there the defendant treated the corn as if he were the real owner, and therefore he would not carry it away at the time the trespass was committed. Davies v. Connop, 1 Price 60.

I have not found any authority that trover may be brought, when that which was part of the realty was carried away without any intermission between the taking and asportation; and the cases in trespass, in such cases, negative the conclusion, that what is so separated can be considered as personality, so as to give the plaintiff his costs. See all the cases in Hullock upon Costs.

I see one learned special pleader thinks the plaintiff might recover his costs in an action for trespass, and taking away a hare or any Game.