there is a great difference made with reſpect to their ſeveral claſſes, not only in our law, but in the law of nature and of all civilized nations. They are diſtinguiſhed into ſuch as are domitae, and ſuch as are ferae naturae; ſome being of a tame, and others of a wild diſpoſition. In ſuch as are of a nature tame and domeſtic, (as horſes, kine, ſheep, poultry, and the like) a man may have as abſolute a property as in any inanimate beings; becauſe theſe continue perpetually in his occupation, and will not ſtray from his houſe or perſon, unleſs by accident or fraudulent enticement, in either of which caſes the owner does not loſe his property[1]: in which our law agrees with the laws of France and Holland[2]. The ſtealing, or forcible abduction, of ſuch property as this, is alſo felony; for theſe are things of intrinſic value, ſerving for the food of man, or elſe for the uſes of huſband-dry[3]. But in animals ferae naturae a man can have no abſolute property.
Of all tame and domeſtic animals, the brood belongs to the owner of the dam or mother; the Engliſh law agreeing with the civil, that "partus ſequitur ventrem" in the brute creation, though for the moſt part in the human ſpecies it diſallows that maxim. And therefore in the laws of England[4], as well as Rome[5], "ſi equam meam equus tuus praegnantem fecerit, non eſt tuum ſed meum quod natum eſt." And, for this, Puffendorf[6] gives a ſenſible reaſon: not only becauſe the male is frequently unknown; but alſo becauſe the dam, during the time of her pregnancy, is almoſt uſeleſs to the proprietor, and muſt be maintained with greater expenſe and care: wherefore as her owner is the loſer by her pregnancy, he ought to be the gainer by her brood. An exception to this rule is in the caſe of young cygnets; which belong equally to the owner of the cock and hen, and ſhall be divided between them[7]. But here the reaſons of the general rule
