Fer' Natur', Animals

Fer' natur', animals. Beasts and birds of a wild disposition, such as deer, hares, coneys in a warren, pheasants, partridges, etc., as distingui-shed from those domit' natur', or tame, such as horses, sheep, poultry, etc. They are not whilst living the subjects of absolute property, so that they cannot be the subject of larceny, nor are they liable to distress for rent. But a man may acquire a qualified property in them, either (1) Per industriam, by his reclaiming and making them tame by art and industry, or by so confining them that they cannot escape, e.g., deer in a park, hares or rabbits in an enclosed warren, etc. The property in them only continues so long as they remain in a man's actual possession, but ceases if they regain their liberty, unless they have animus revertendi, as in the case of pigeons, tame hawks, etc. (2) Ratione impotenti', on account of their inability, as when birds, coneys, etc., make their nests or burrows on a mans' land, then he has a qualified property in the young until they can fly or run away. (3) Propter privilegium, when a man has a privilege of hunting, taking, and killing certain wild animals, usually called game, in exclusion of other persons. He has a transient property in them so long as they continue within his liberty, and may prevent any stranger from taking them therein; but the instant they depart from his liberty his qualified property in them ceases, 2 Bl. Com. 391. See GAME.

Of animals fer' natur' when dead, reclaimed, or confined, if they are fit for food, larceny may be committed at Common Law; at Common Law it is not larceny to steal animals which do not serve for food, such as dogs and ferrets, but, if their flesh is fit for human consumption and, being fer' natur', they are reclaimed or confined, they may be the subject of larceny. The (English) Larceny Act, 1916, however, makes everything of value and the property of a person the subject of larceny [ss. 1 (3), (4)].

With regard to injuries inflicted by savage animals and the responsibility of their owner therefor, if a man be possessed of an animal absolutely fer' natur', as the tiger, he is an insurer, and responsible for any damage done by it; but if there be an animal of a kind generally amenable, but the individual beast be accustomed to do mischief, it must be proved that it was known to be so by its master, Filburn v. People's Palace and Aquarium Co., (1890) 25 QBD 258. By the Dogs Act, 1906, the owner of a dog is made liable for injuries to cattle, sheep, etc., even if unaware of the dog's tendency to do mischief.

For the protection of wild animals in captivity, see ANIMALS. See also (English) Wild Birds Protection Acts, 1880 to 1908; and the (English) Protection of Birds Act, 1933 (23 & 24 Geo. 5, c. 52).