GAME LAWS. Laws regulating the kill ing 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 land holders, and are said to be directly descend ed 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 re strictions, such as requiring licenses, etc.
As the most effective means of enforcing such statutes, most of them prohibit all per sons, including licensed dealers, under penal ty, from buying or selling or even having in possession or control any game purchased within a certain period after the commence ment 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, etc., between specified days has been held not to apply to such lawfully taken in another state; Corn. v. Hall, 128 Mass. 410, 35 Am. Rep. 387; Roth v. State, 51 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 AU. 14; contra as to game unlawfully taken in another state; 35 Am. Rep. 390, note ; State v. Saun ders, 19 Kan. 127, 27 Am. Rep. 98 ; L. R. 2 C. P. Div. 553; People v. O'Neil, 71 Mich. 325, 39 N. W. 1; it has been held not to be an offence to expose live birds for sale under a statute prohibiting the killing or having possession of certain birds after the same are killed; People v. Fishbough, 134 N. Y. 393, 31 N. E. 983, reversing 58 Hun 404, 12 N. Y. Supp. 24; and the mere possession of game during the closed season does not con stitute an offence if it were killed during the open season; State v. Bucknam, 88 Me. 385, 34 Atl. 170, 51 Am. St. Rep. 406; but a stat ute which forbids the sale or having in pos session 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 Deininger, 108 Fed. 623.
A state may forbid those in rightful pos session of game taken within the state from selling it ; Ex parte Blardone, 55 Tex. Cr. R. 189, 115 S. W. 838, 116 S. W. 1199, 21 L. R. A. (N. S.) 607; American Express Co. v. People, 133 III. 649, 24 N. E. 758, 9 L. R. A. 138, 23 Am. St. Rep. 641; Ex parte Kenneke, 136 Cal. 527, 69 Pac. 261, 89 Am. St. Rep. 177; State v. Dow, 70 N. H. 286, 47 Atl. 734, 53 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 trans portation beyond the state, birds which have been lawfully killed within the state; Geer v. Connecticut, 161 U. S. 519, 16 Sup. Ct. 600, 40 L. Ed. 793. Such legislation is not an un constitutional interference with Interstate commerce; id.; New York v. Hesterberg, 211 U. S. 31, 29 Sup. Ct. 10, 53 L. Ed. 75; Organ v. State, 56 Ark. 267, 19 S. W. 840. An act declaring 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 resi dent 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 importa tion of which is prohibited, or of any game birds transported into any state, shall be subject therein to the operation oC its laws; People v. Hesterberg, 184 N. Y. 126, 76 N. E. 1032, 3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 163, 128 Am. St. Rep. 528, 6 Ann. Cas. 353; New York v. Hes terberg, 211 U. S. 31, 29 Sup. Ct. 10, 53 L. Ed. 75 ; Ex parte Maier, 103 Cal. 476, 37 Pac. 402, 42 Am. St. Rep. 129; State v. Rodman, 58 Minn. 393, 59 N. W. 1098; Roth v. State, 51 Ohio St. 209, 37 N. E. 259, 46 Am. St. Rep. 566; a statute forbidding the posses sion of game in the close season extends to game in cold storage; State v. Judy, 7 Mo. App. 524; one forbidding the sale of trout applies to trout artificially propagated; Com. v. Gilbert, 160 Mass. 157, 35 N. E. 454, 22 L. R. A. 439. A statute forbidding the transportation of game includes deer in a private park ; Dieterich v. Fargo, 119 App. Div. 315, 104 N. Y. Supp. 334.
An act prohibiting the taking of game by aliens and forbidding their possession of a 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, 58 L. Ed. - (Janu ary, 1914).
See, generally, Austin, Farm and Game Law ; and, for the English game laws at the end of the 18th century, Jacob, Law Diet.