The Law of the Land. made the defendant entered with his boat and took the fish. Though the court was of the opinion that the conduct of the defend ant was not commendable, yet they could not avoid holding that the fish were not in the actual power of the plaintiff, that the plaintiff's possession was not complete so as to enable him to maintain an action for damages. In another case, a hunter had chased up a fox, was in pursuit of it, there was no doubt in his mind that he would overtake and capture it. However, another hunter made his appearance and in his sight killed and carried away the fox. In an action of trespass for damages the court said that the first hunter had not brought the fox into his actual power, and hence had not such pos session of it as to be able to maintain tres pass. From time to time courts have found it necessary to add to the list of animals of which when reclaimed larceny may be com mitted. Bishop mentions the following: "pigeons, doves, hares, covies,, deer, swans, wild boars, cranes, pheasants and partridges, to which may be added fish valuable for food, including undoubtedly oysters." In fact, when reclaimed and confined, the whole animal kingdom may be claimed to come under the same rule. If it were not so the menagerie business would be ex tremely risky. An enterprising Yankee might transfer an entire menagerie to a new set of cages and make defense to the larceny that the ferae naturae of the mena gerie were not objects of larceny. A Western court called upon to deter mine the status of a tame buffalo, held that a buffalo which has been 'captured when a calf and reared on a farm with domestic cattle and becomes so tame as to take food
45*
from the hands of its master like other cattle and to be easily driven home when it strays away is no longer of a wild nature, but is the subject of property, and for any trespass committed by it the owner is liable, and for any injury done to it by others he can recover damages. The whales that move in the great waters have been to court, making of themselves martyrs for the development of the law of the land. Capturing and killing a whale and leaving it floating upon the ocean with marks of appropriation, makes it the abso lute property of its captors who can main tain an action against one who appropriates it with or without knowledge of the title of the captors. Fin-back whales killed in Massachusetts Bay with bomb lances sink to the bottom. They float to the surface in two or three days, and a usage that they shall belong to the person who killed them, no matter by whom found, is enforced. We leave the subject with the whale. The whale has swallowed our subject with its characteristic Jonah disposition. Be holding our title and the end hereof, it may be asked, who ever heard of a whale for a pet? A recent newspaper yarn told of a pet whale that came at the whistle of its master in some bay, and sported and spout ed in obedience to command. If that story is not pure fiction, and that whale is hurt or does an injury, a court may have to handle several nice questions that suggest them selves. Can a pet whale be the subject of a larceny? Or if the pet whale swallows a man, will the owner be liable to the widow of the swallowed one in damages because kept with full knowledge of its natural propensity to swallow? We will make no attempt to forestall the answers of the court.
