quire such knowledge, and the indictment under them must aver and the evidence prove it. Beyond this, § 1126. Mistake of the fact.- One or two of our courts have holden that, where the statute is silent concerning the seller's knowledge, if, however honestly and after whatever precautions, he is misled to believe the milk to be pure, he is punishable should it turn out to be adulterated. Yet, by the just doctrine, an unavoidable mistake of the fact, by one whose purpose it is to obey the law, relieves him from legal guilt, the same as from moral, precisely as in other ciminal cases. question is sufficiently examined in other connections.3 The § 1127. Indictment and evidence.- Some questions have arisen relating to the indictment and evidence; as to which, a mere reference to these cases will suffice.1 Smith, 103 Mass. 444; S. v. Smith, 10 R. L. 258. This is probably the correct doctrine; though, in analogous cases, various statutes which are silent as to the criminal intent are construed to require it as an affirmative element in the offense; when, of course, it must be alleged and proved. Crim. Pro., I, § 522. Thus, Alum in bread.- Almost precisely in accordance with the forms of our leading statutes against selling adulterated milk, the English statute of 6 & 7 Will. 4, ch. 37, made it an offense for a "baker or other person" making "bread for sale," to "use any mixture,” etc., and provided for the publication of the names of convicted offenders. And it was held that on a simple allegation, in the terms of the statute, of mixing alum in bread, and proof of the fact and no affirmative evidence of guilty knowledge, a conviction could not be sustained. Said Hannan, J.: "The provisions of the act cast great responsibility on a master baker; but I cannot think it to have been the intention of the legislature that he should be liable to a penalty for anything that occurs by accident. If this were so, the master might be punished when some foreign ingre dient had fallen into the flour without the knowledge of either himself or his servant; and I am the more inclined to think that the legislature had not this intention, because the name of the master who has been convicted under the act is to be made public in order that persons may be warned against dealing at a shop where something wrong has been done, either by the servant or his employer." Gore v. James, Law R. 7 Q. B. 135, 138. Yet the just doctrine as to mistaking the fact, explained in the next section of the text, would seem to satisfy this reasoning. 1 Com. v. Smith (the Mass. case), supra; Bainbridge v. S., 30 Ohio St. 264; Phillips v. Meade, 75 Ill. 334; Com. v. Flannelly, 15 Gray, 195; [Com. v. Evans, 132 Mass. 11; Com. v. Warren, 160 Mass. 533, 36 N. E. R. 308; P. v. Schaeffer, 41 Hun, 23; P. v. Cipperly, supra; P. v. West, 106 N. Y. 293, 12 N. E. R. 610; P. v. Kibler, 106 N. Y. 321, 12 N. E. R. 795; P. v. Eddy, 59 Hun, 615, 12 N. Y. Supp. 628.] 2 Crim. Law, I, § 303a, note, par. 22. 3 Ib., SS 301-310 and the long note at $ 303a; ante, §§ 596a, 596b, 631a632a, 663-665, 729, 819, 825, 1022. 4 Com. v. Luscomb, 130 Mass. 42; II. STATUTES FOR THE PROTECTION OF FISH. § 1128. Common-law right of fishing.— A full explanation of the common-law right of fishing in the waters would occupy considerable space. But for the purposes of the present discussion it is sufficient to say that, in the absence of anything to the contrary, the owners of the soil along unnavigable streams are exclusively entitled to fish therein; and, where there are different owners of the opposite banks, the right of each extends to the center of the stream. And in navigable waters, whether sea or river, the right of fishing is prima facie common to all the people. But,— Dilley v. P., 4 Bradw. 52; Lammond v. Volans, 14 Hun, 263; Com. v. O'Donnell, 1 Allen, 583; Com. v. Nichols, 10 Allen, 199; Com. v. Flannelly, 15 Gray, 195; Stearns v. Ingraham, 1 Thomp. & C. 218; Com. v. Farren. 9 Allen, 489; [Sanchez v. S., 27 Tex. Ap. 14, 10 S. W. R. 756; Cantee v. S., 27 Tex. Ap. 10, 10 S. W. R. 757. Cases cited: Com. v. Keenan, 139 Mass. 193; Com. v. Bowers, 140 Mass. 483, 5 N. E. R. 469; Com. v. Tobias, 141 Mass. 129, 6 N. E. R. 217; Com. v. Smith, 143 Mass. 169, 9 N. E. R. 631; Com. v. Spear, 143 Mass. 172, 9 N. E. R. 632; Com. v. Lockhardt, 144 Mass. 132, 10 N. E. R. 511; Com. v. Holt, 146 Mass. 38, 14 N. E. R. 930; Com. v. Coleman, 157 Mass. 460, 32 N. E. R. 662; Com. v. Proctor, 165 Mass. 38, 42 N. E. R. 335; S. v. Campbell, 64 N. H. 402, 13 Atl. R. 585; S. v. Newton, 45 N. J. L. 469; P. v. Bischoff, 14 N. Y. S. R. 581; P. v. Bivins, 53 Hun, 274, 7 N. Y. Crim. R. 92, 6 N. Y. Sup. 611; S. v. Groves, 15 R. I. 208, 2 Atl. R. 384; Com. v. Rowell, 146 Mass. 128, 15 N. E. R. 154.] 13 Kent, Com. 411, 412, 418; Ingram v. Threadgill, 3 Dev. 59; Carter v. Murcot, 4 Bur. 2162, 2164; Adams v. Pease, 2 Conn. 481; Waters v. Lilley, 4 Pick. 145, [16 Am. D. 333;] Hooker v. Cummings, 20 Johns. 90, [11 Am. D. 249;] Fitzwalter's Case, 1 Mod. 105; Marsh v. Colby, 39 Mich. 626, [33 Am. R. 439.] On lakes.-The rule of the river is not applicable to our large lakes. Sloan v. Biemiller, 34 Ohio St. 492; [Turner v. Hebron, 61 Conn. 175, 22 Atl. R. 951; Lincoln v. Davis, 53 Mich. 375, 51 Am. R. 116; Hill v. Bishop, 63Hun, 624, 17 N. Y. Supp. 297; New Eng. Trout Club v. Mather, 68 Vt. 338.] 23 Kent, Com. 413, 418; Bagott v.. Orr, 2 B. & P. 472; Carter v. Murcot, supra; Fitzwalter's Case, supra; Malcomson v. O'Dea, 10 H. L. Cas. 593; Parker v. Cutler Mill Dam Co., 20 Me. 353, [37 Am. D. 56;] Preble v. Brown, 47 Me. 284; Coolidge v. Williams, 4 Mass. 140, 144; Freary v. Cooke, 14 Mass. 488; Com. v. Chapin, 5 Pick. 199, [16 Am. D. 386;] Yard v. Carman, 2 Penning. 936; Collins v. Ben bury, 5 Ire. 118, [42 Am. D. 155;] S. v. Glen, 7 Jones (N. C.), 321; Warren v. Mathews, 6 Mod. 73; Paul v. Hazleton, 8 Vroom, 106; Skinner v. Hettrick, 73 N. C. 53; Lay v. King, 5 Day, 72; Chalker v. Dickinson, 1 Conn. 382, [6 Am. D. 250:] Trustees of Brooknaven v. Strong, 60 N. Y. 56; [Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U. S. 1; Manchester v. Massachusetts, 139 U. S. 240; Pearson v. Clark, 76 Me. 476; Sollers v. Sollers, 77 Md. 148, 39 Am. St. R. 404; Polhemus v. Bateman, 47 Hun (N. Y.), § 1129. Obstructing passage- (When indictable).- As, in the rivers not navigable, each owner of the soil is entitled to fish, it results, at least as a question of principle, and it is believed also as of authority, that no owner can, without subjecting himself to a civil suit by the others, erect any permanent obstruction - certainly without some special occasion to the passage of the fish. Yet such erection, not being an injury to all the people, is not at the common law an indictable nuisance. But in a navigable river, where the public rights of fishing attach, it is indictable at the common law.3 Now,§ 1130. Statutory regulations-(Constitutional).- Since it is constitutionally competent for our legislatures to regulate the exercise of even private rights and the use of private property, they may provide rules for the taking of fish and their protection in private or non-navigable rivers; and, for special and obvious reasons, proceed therein further than would be justifiable in respect of most other private interests. Palpably, the private fisheries in streams not navigable, where each proprietor's rights are connected with those of every other, and the stream itself flows into navigable waters, are, though not public, semi-public. A fortiori, legislation may properly regulate fishing in the navigable waters." 366; Rea v. Hampton, 101 N. C. 51, 9 Am. St. R. 21; Chambers v. Church, 14 R. I. 378, 51 Am. R. 410; Allen v. Allen, 19 R. L. 114; Morris v. Graham, 16 Wash. 343.] 1 Woolever v. Stewart, 36 Ohio St. 146, [38 Am. R. 569,] and the authorities cited; Stoughton v. Baker, 4 Mass. 522, [3 Am. D. 236;] Leconfield v. Lonsdale, Law R. 5 C. P. 657, 725; Weld v. Hornby, 7 East, 195; [Parker v. P., 111 Ill. 581.] 2 P. v. Platt, 17 Johns. 195, [8 Am, D. 382;] Leconfield v. Lonsdale, supra. 3 Weld v. Hornby, 7 East, 195, 199; S. v. Franklin Falls Co., 49 N. H. 240, [6 Am. R. 513.] Doughty v. Converse, 13 Vroom, 193; Tinicum Fishing Co. v. Carter, 90 Pa. St. 85, [35 Am. R. 632;] Blydenburgh v. Miles, 39 Conn. 484; Maney v. S., 6 Lea, 218; Com. v. Weatherhead, 110 Mass. 175; Lunt v. Hunter, 16 Me. 9; Peables v. Hannaford, 18 Me. 106; Vinton v. Welsh, 9 Pick. 87; [Heckman v. Swett, 107 Cal. 276, 40 Pac. R. 420; P. v. Bridges, 142 Ill. 30, 31 N. E. R. 115; S. v. Lewis, 134 Ind. 250, 33 N. E. R. 1024; Cole v. Eastham, 133 Mass. 65; P. v. Collison, 85 Mich. 105, 48 N. W. R. 292; P. v. Doxtader, 75 Hun (N. Y.), 472; Peters v. S., 96 Tenn. 682; Money v. S., 6 Lea (Tenn.), 218; Bittenhaus v. Johnston, 92 Wis. 4 Ante, § 995, and places there re- 588.] ferred to. 5 Com. v. Look, 108 Mass. 452; Stuttsman v. S., 57 Ind. 119; S. v. Boone, 30 Ind. 225; S. v. Snover, 13 Vroom, 341; 6 Paul v. Hazleton, 8 Vroom, 106; Moulton v. Libbey, 37 Me. 472, [59 Am. D. 57;] Com. v. Bailey, 13 Allen, 541; P. v. Reed, 47 Barb. 235. § 1131. State and United States jurisdiction.— Upon this subject, differing from commerce and some others, the jurisdiction of the states, to the exclusion of the United States, even over the navigable waters within their territorial limits,' is complete. So ample is this doctrine, that a state may limit to its own citizens the right of fishing in its navigable waters; in subjection, however, to the superior rights of navigation. 2 § 1132. Concerning the statutes.- In pursuance of these principles, various and diverse statutes concerning fish and fisheries have been enacted in the several states, making violations of their regulations penal. But into their particulars it is deemed best not to enter. Some of the cases are cited in the note. III. STATUTES FOR THE PROTECTION OF GAME. § 1133. Wild animals and birds,-in their unreclaimed state, belong to no one; but they, or their carcasses or hides, will be the property of him who kills or otherwise sufficiently 1 Crim. Law, I, § 145 et seq.; [Lowndes v. Huntingdon, 153 U. S. 1; Heckman v. Swett, supra; Sollers v. Sollers, supra; P. v. Lowndes, 130 N. Y. 455.] 2 As to the limit whereof see Cobb v. Bennett, 75 Pa. St. 326, [15 Am. R. 752;] Lewis v. Keeling, 1 Jones (N. C.), 299, [62 Am. D. 168.] McCready v. Virginia, 94 U. S. 391; McCready v. Com., 27 Grat. 985; Haney v. Compton, 7 Vroom, 507; Corfield v. Coryell, 4 Wash. C. C. 371; Dunham v. Lamphere, 3 Gray, 268; [Manchester v. Massachusetts, supra; Com. v. Manchester, 152 Mass. 230, 25 N. E. R. 113; Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U. S. 1.] 4 Com. v. Perley, 130 Mass. 469; Com. v. Tiffany, 119 Mass. 300; Com. v. Ruggles, 10 Mass. 391; Com. v. Weatherhead, 110 Mass. 175; Maney v. S., 6 Lea, 218; McCready v. Com., 27 Grat. 985; Power v. Tazewells, 25 Grat. 786; Morgan v. Com., 26 Grat. 992; Com. v. Bailey, 13 Allen, 541; Stuttsman v. S., 57 Ind. 119; S. v. Snover, 13 Vroom, 341; Com. v. Look, 108 Mass. 452; Werfel v. Com., 5 Binn. 65; Smith v. Look, 108 Mass. 139; S. v. Thompson, 70 Me. 196; Com. v. Vincent, 108 Mass. 441; S. v. Skolfield, 63 Me. 266; S. v. Cottle, 70 Me. 198; Willing v. Bozman, 52 Md. 44; S. v. Decker, 46 Conn. 241; S. v. Hooffman, 9 Md. 28; Lawton v. Steele, 152 U. S. 133; S. v. Nash, 62 Conn. 47, 25 Atl. R. 451; Summers v. P., 29 Ill. Ap. 170; Smith v. P., 46 Ill. Ap. 130; S. v. Haug, 95 Iowa, 413; S. v. Beal, 75 Me. 289; S. v. Adams, 78 Me. 486, 7 Atl. R. 267; S. v. Towle, 80 Me. 349; 14 Atl. R. 195; S. v. Dunning, 83 Md. 178, 22 Atl. R. 109; Hughes v. S., 87 Md. 298; Com. v. Manimon, 136 Mass. 456; Com. v. Follett, 164 Mass. 477; P. v. Kirsch, 67 Mich. 539, 35 N. W. R. 157; P. v. Miller, 88 Mich. 383, 50 N. W. R. 296; P. v. Deverno, 106 Mich. 621; In re Zele, 107 Mich. 228; Osborn v. Judge, etc., 114 Mich. 655; S. v. Mrozinski, 59 Minn. 465, 61 N. W. R. 560; S. v. Blount, 85 Mo. 543; West Pt. etc. Co. v. S., 49 Neb. 218; P. v. Gillette, 58 Hun, 602, 11 N. Y. Sup. 461; P. v. Fish, 89 Hun, 163; [Lawton v. Steele, 119 N. Y. 226; P. v. Tanner, 128 N. Y. 416; Hettrick v. Page, 82 N. C. 65; S. v. Conner, 107 reclaims and possesses them.1 Under some circumstances, the owner of the soil whereon an animal lives, though wild, has a sort of ownership therein before it is reclaimed,2-a question which, with various others, is not within the present subject. Now, § 1134. Legislation concerning. These creatures, while wild and unreclaimed, sustain important relations to the human population; and their protection or destruction is, according to their natures and numbers, matter of public concern. Hence there has been, in our states, various legislation on the subject; and, as its importance becomes better understood, the statutes increase. Some of the adjudications are referred to in a note;3 but the topic will not be further pursued, except as to the § 1135. United States constitution.-It has been deemed, in a state court, not to be competent for state legislation to prohibit the transportation of particular animals and birds out of the state; the question being one of interstate commerce,+ N. C. 931, 11 S. E. R. 992; S. v. Sturges, 9 Oreg. 537; S. v. McGuire, 24 Oreg. 366, 33 Pac. R. 666; S. v. Tayler, 13 R. I. 541; S. v. Stevens, 69 Vt. 411; S. v. Tabell, 10 Wash. 498, 39 Pac. R. 101; S. v. Crawford, 13 Wash. 633.] 1 Crim. Law, II, §§ 771-779; 2 Kent, Com. 348; Buster v. Newkirk, 20 Johns. 75; Pierson v. Post, 3 Caines, 175, [2 Am. D. 264;] Amory v. Flyn, 10 Johns. 102, [6 Am. D. 316;] Woolf v. Chalker, 31 Conn. 21, [81 Am. D. 175;] Parker v. Mise, 27 Ala. 480, [62 Am. D. 776.] See Case of Swans, 7 Co. 15b; [James v. Wood, 82 Me. 176, 19 Atl. R. 160; S. v. Parker, 89 Me. 81.] 2 Goff v. Kilts, 15 Wend. 550; Gillet v. Mason, 7 Johns. 16; Ferguson v. Miller, 1 Cow. 243, [13 Am. D. 519;] Wallis v. Mease, 3 Binn. 546; Churchward v. Studdy, 14 East, 249; Sutton v. Moody, 5 Mod. 375, 2 Salk. 556, 1 Ld. Raym. 250; Deane v. Clayton, 7 Taunt. 489; Blades v. Higgs, 12 C. B. (N. S.) 501; [Kellogg v. Cain, 114 Cal. 378; Garcia v. Gunn, 119 Cal. 315.] 3 S. v. Shannon, 36 Ohio St. 423, [38 Am. R. 599;] Bellows v. Elmen dorf, 7 Lans. 462; Aldrich v. Wright, 53 N. H. 398, [16 Am. R. 339;] Com. v. Hall, 128 Mass. 410, [35 Am. R. 387;] Underwood v. S., 19 Ala. 532; Magner v. P., 97 Ill. 320; Phelps v. Racey, 60 N. Y. 10, [19 Am. R. 140;] Hart v. S., 29 Ohio St. 666; [Ex parte Peterson, 119 Cal. 578; Com. v. England (Ky.), 38 S. W. R. 492; Dickhaut v. S., 85 Md. 451, 60 Am. St. R. 332; S. v. Bucknam, 88 Me. 392, 51 Am. St. R. 406; S. v. Lynch, 89 Me. 209; P. v. O'Neil, 71 Mich. 331, 39 N. W. R. 1; S. v. Rodman, 58 Minn. 293, 59 N. W. R. 1098; S. v. Chapel, 64 Minn. 130, 58 Am. St. R. 524; Roth v. S., 51 Ohio St. 209, 46 Am. St. R. 566; P. v. Alden, 112 N. Y. 117, 19 N. E. R. 516; P. v. Fishbough, 134 N. Y. 393, 31 N. E. R. 983; Com. v. Wilkinson, 139 Pa. St. 298, 21 Atl. R. 14; Dickinson v. S. (Tex. Cr. R.), 41 S. W. R. 759.] 4 Railroad v. Husen, 95 U. S. 465. [The case of S. v. Saunders, supra, and the later case of Terr. v. Evans, 2 Idaho, 634, are expressly disapproved in Geer v. Connecticut, 161 U. S. 534. See also Ex parte Maier, 103 Cal. 479, 42 Am. St. R. 129; Amer. |