Commonwealth v. Bailey

• Decision Date: 16 January 1919
• Citation: 97 S.E. 774
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH. v. BAILEY.
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

97 S.E. 774

COMMONWEALTH.

v.BAILEY.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

Jan. 16, 1919.

Error to Circuit Court, Southampton County.

Ernest Bailey was charged with hunting foxes without a license, in violation of Acts 1916, c. 152, and from a judgment of the circuit court, affirming a judgment of justices of the peace dismissing the warrant, the Commonwealth brings error. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

The Attorney General, for the Commonwealth.

Junius W. Pulley, of Courtland, for defendant in error.

WHITTLE, P. The defendant in error, Ernest Bailey, was tried before three justices of the peace of Southampton county, upon a warrant charging that he "did unlawfully hunt, without license, for foxes in said county." Upon appeal to the circuit court from the judgment of the justices dismissing the warrant at the cost of the commonwealth, the judgment was affirmed, and the case is here upon writ of error to the judgment of affirmance.

The case arises under an act of the General Assembly approved March 11, 1916, entitled:

"An act to create a state department of game and inland fisheries, and providing for the issuing of licenses to provide revenue for the support of such department, and imposing penalties for its violation." Acts 1916, c. 152, p. 257.

The agreed facts are these:

"The defendant is a resident of Southampton county, Va., and on March ——, 1917, he engaged in fox hunting outside of the limits of his own, or the adjoining, property, in Southampton county, Va., without first having procured a license to hunt. It is further agreed that he was not the owner, or the landlord, of the land hunted over by him, nor was he a member of the families of the owners and landlords of said land, nor was he a tenant or renter residing on said land. It is further agreed that the sole question before the court is whether or not a license is required in order to engage in fox hunting in this state, and that the defendant does not come within any exemption of the Virginia game laws, unless under the provisions thereof one may engage in fox hunting without first procuring a license to hunt. It is further agreed that said defendant was hunting without the consent of the landlord over whose land he hunted."

It thus appears that the question for our determination is whether one who engages in fox hunting in this state is a "person who hunts, " within the meaning of section 32 of the act in question. So much of that section as is pertinent to this inquiry reads as follows:

"Hunting Without License Prohibited.—Any person who hunts outside of the limits of his own or the adjoining property, * * * without first obtaining a license permitting him to do so, * * * shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction shall be punished by a fine of not less than five nor more than twenty-five dollars. * * *"

In 1 Bouvier's Law Dictionary, p. 967, "hunting" is defined to be:

"The act of pursuing and taking wild animals; the chase."

Webster's International defines "hunt":

"To search for or follow after, as game or wild animals; to chase; to pursue for the purpose of catching or killing; to follow with dogsor guns for sport or exercise; as, to hunt a deer. To follow the chase; to go out in pursuit of game; to course with...