Game

Birds and beasts of a wild nature, obtained by fowling and hunting.

Bacon, Abr. See Coolldge v. Choate, 11 Mete. (Mass.) 79.

As applied to animals it Is to be understood in its ordinary sense, in the absence of statutory definition; Guim v. State, 89 Ga. 341, 16 S. E. 458. A contest Playing golf alone on Sunday is not playing the game of golf; [1908] BJ.

D. C. 43 (So. African).

GAME LAWa Laws regulating the killing or taking of birds, and beasts, as game. The English game laws are founded on the idea of restricting the right of taking game to certain privileged classes, generally landholders, and are said to be directly descended from the old forest laws. The doctrine as laid down by Blackstone that the sole right of hunting and killing game was at common law vested in the crown has been controverted by Prof. Christian who clearly demonstrated that the owner of the soil, or the lessee or occupier, If no reservation was made In the lease, possessed the exclusive right to such game restriction. In 1831 the English law was so modified as to enable any one to obtain a certificate or license to kill game on payment of a fee. The laws relating to game in the United States were generally, if not universally, framed with reference to protecting the game from indiscriminate and unreasonable havoc, leaving all persons free to take game under certain restrictions as to the season of the year and the means of capture. But the more recent acts have provided other restrictions, such as requiring licenses, etc. As the most effective means of enforcing such statutes, most of them prohibit all persons, Including licensed dealers, under penalty, from buying or selling or even having in possession or control any game purchased within, a certain period after the commencement of the close season. The enforcement of these penalties has been fruitful of much litigation. A statute forbidding any one to kill, sell, or have In possession woodcock, eta, between specified days has been held not to apply to such lawfully taken in another state; Com. V. Hall, 128 Mass. 410, 35 Am. Rep. 387; Roth V. State, 61 Ohio St 209, 37 N. E. 259, 46 Am. St Rep. 566 (followed in State v. Rodman, 58 Minn. 393, 59 N. W. 1099); Com. V. Wilkinson, 139 Pa. 298, 21 Atl. 14; contra as to game^ unlawfully taken in another state; 35 Am. Rep. 390, note; State v. Saunders, 19 Kan. 127, 27 Am. Rep. 98; L. R. 2 G P. Div. 663; People v. O’Neil, 71 Mich. ft statute prohibiting the killing or having possession of certain birds after the same are killed; People v. Flshbough, 134 N. Y. S93, 81 N. B. 083, reversing 58 Hun 404, 12 N. Y. Supp. 24; and the mere possession of game during the closed season does not constitute an offence if it were killed during the open season; State v. Bucknam, 88 Me. 385, 84 Ati. 170, 51 Am. St. Rep. 406; but a stat- • ute which forbids the sale or having in possession for the purpose of sale, of such game during the close season, is constitutional and a valid exercise of the police power, even if it were killed out of the state; In re Deinlnger, 108 Fed. 623. A state may forbid those in rightful possession of game taken within the state from selling It; Ex parte Blardone, 55 Tex. Cr. R. 189, 116 S. W. 838, 116 S. W. 1199, 21 L. R. A. (N. S.) 607; American Express Co. v. People, 133 111. 649, 24 N. E. 758, 9 L. R. A. 138, 23 Am. St Rep. 641; Ex parte Kenneke, 136 Cal. 627, 69 Pac. 261, 89 Am. St. Rep. 177; State v. Dow, 70 N. H. 286, 47 Atl. 734, 63 L. R. A. 314; State v. Heger, 194 Mo. 707, 93 S. W. 252; or may make it an offence to have in possession, for the purpose of transportation beyond the state, birds which have been lawfully killed within the state; Geer V. Connecticut, 161 U. S. 619, 16 Slip. Ct 600, 40 L. Ed. 793. Such legislation Is not an unconstitutional Interference with Interstate commerce; id.; New York v. Hesterberg, 211 U. S. 31, 29 Sup. Ct. 10, 53 L. Ed. 76; Organ V. State, 66 Ark. 267, 19 S. W. 840. An act d^laring it unlawful in a non-resident to hunt or fish at any season of the year was held unconstitutional as denying the equal protection of the law to the non-resident land owner which was afforded to the resident land owner; State v. Mallory, 73 Ark. 236, 89 S. W. 955, 67 L. R. A. 773, 3 Ann. Cas. 852. The Lacey Act provides that all bodies of foreign game birds, the importatlpn of which is prohibited, or of any game birds transported Into any state, shall be subject therein to the operation of its laws; People V. Hesterberg, 184 N. Y. 126, 76 N. E. 1032, 3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 163, 128 Am. St- Rep. 628, 6 Ann. Cas. 353; New York v. Hesterberg, 211 U. S. 31, 29 Sup. Ct 10, 63 L. Ed. 76; Ex parte Maler, 103 Cal. 470, 37 Pac. 402, 42 Am. St. Rep. 129; State v. Rodman, 58 Minn. 893, 69 N. W. 1098; Roth v. State, 61 Ohio St 209, 37 N. E. 269, 46 Am. St. Rep. 566; a statute forbidding the possession of game in the close season extends to game in cold storage; State v. Judy, 7 Mo. App. 624; one forbidding the sale of trout applies to trout artificially propagated; Com. V. GUbert, 160 Mass. 157, 86 N. E. 464, 22 L. R. A. 489. A statute forbidding the transportation of game Includes deer in a private park; Dleterlch v. Fargo, 119 App. Dlv. 816, 104 N. Y. Supp. 834. gun or rifle is not obnoxious to the XIVth Amendment or the treaty with Italy; Com. V. Patsone, 231 Pa. 46, 79 Atl. 928, affirmed in Supreme Court of United States, 232 U. S. 138, 34 Sup. Ct. 281, 68 L. Ed. — (January, 1914). See, generally, Austin, Farm and Game Law; and, for the English game laws at the end of the 18th century, Jacob, Law Diet.