Crim184-1

No brief on record.

No brief on record.

Rex v. Delenn Crim 184-1d

''This opinion was forumlated with the amicus assistance of several interested and concerned citizens of the realm. Their input is greatly appreciated.''

FACTS: Isildur was in the act of killing the monster Violte. While in the process, Delenn entered the room and killed the monster claiming it was her kill. Delenn alleges that she had previously attacked the monster and left only to replenish her food stores; that Violte was substantially incapacitated at the time that she left; that Ilsidur was attempting to steal the kill from her; and that her act of killing Violte was a good faith attempt to complete an attack she had already begun. Ilsidur alleges, inter alia, that he had substantially weakened Violte; that he was about to kill Violte when Delenn unlawfully interfered with his actions and received the benefits of the kill; that Delenn stole or otherwise misappropriated a kill that was clearly her own.

DISCUSSION: The precise issues in this care are as follows: First, whether an individual who begins to kill a monster obtains a property interest in the eventual killing of the monster such that it may be misappropriated or stolen by another individual. Second, whether an individual who interferes with the killing of a monster with the intent and purpose of obtaining the experience and benefits for herself has committed an act for which criminal liability may obtain.

The litigants in this case and the amicus briefs indicate that this is clearly an important issue in this realm. It cannot be denied that one whose kill is stolen from him at the last minute feels wronged. But does it follow that a crime has in fact taken place? This issue presents a problem that is capable of interpretation as either a criminal or a civil violation. Sable does not have an official system for adjudicating civil disputes between individuals and so this court has jurisdiction over this problem if and only if this is a criminal matter.

For the reasons below, I find that it is not a crime for an individual to interfere with and take credit for a kill already begun by another.

The common law tradition, from which we develop our laws, has addressed this problem. In Pierson v. Post (The Realm of New York, 1805), the court considered the following: Whether a person who with his own hounds starts and hunts a fox on uninhabited ground, and is on the point of seizing his prey, acquires such an interest in the animal, as to have a right of action against another, who in view of the huntsman and his dogs in full pursuit, and with the knowledge of the chase shall kill and carry him away? The court concluded that the act of merely pursuing the fox with the intent to kill it did not bring it within the property interests of the person in pursuit. The fox is an animal ferae naturae, and a property interest does not obtain to an individual until he has killed it and possessed it.

The facts here are similar to Pierson. Ilsidur's "pursuit" of Violte was his attempts to kill. During battle, there is every possibility that the beast may not die, in which case the fighter will have nothing at all to possess. It is only once the beast is killed that the killer reaps the spoils of that kill. It is only at that point that a possessory interest obtains and only at that point that a possessory interest may be unlawfully interfered with. Until the monster is actually dead, another individual may lawfully interfere in the fight, just as a fox who is pursued by one individual may be suddenly seized at the last moment by another.

This opinion applies only to the narrow issues stated. There is no decision made as to whether the last minute taking of a kill started by another creates in the harmed individual a right of retaliation.

All charges against Delenn are dismissed. No Crime.

Judge