## Facts

- Mason Jones set a bear trap with a chain and clog in Stratton, Vermont; a bear was caught and dragged the trap away before becoming entangled nearby.
- E. H. Metcalf, the county fish and game warden, investigated reports of illegally set bear traps with deputy wardens and a guide.
- A member of Metcalf’s party found the bear in the trap and shot it; Metcalf directed that the bear and trap be carried to an автомобile and taken to Brattleboro.
- Metcalf kept the trap, left the bear at a slaughterhouse to be dressed, and published notice to locate the owner.
- Jones responded to the notice, identified the trap at the state’s attorney’s office, and received the trap and the bear hide; the meat was spoiled and not taken.
- Jones sued, claiming the seizure and detention caused loss of the bear and led to time and expense in recovering his property.

## Issues

1. Whether a county fish and game warden may seize and detain, for evidentiary purposes, a trap allegedly illegally set and a wild animal caught in it.
2. Whether evidence that the trap was illegally set (including that it was not guarded as required by statute) was material and should have been admitted.
3. Whether the trial court erred by effectively directing liability for taking the trap and by instructing the jury on the bear claim without adequately accounting for the warden’s statutory enforcement authority.

## Decision

- The Vermont Supreme Court reversed the judgment for the plaintiff and remanded for further proceedings.
- The trial court erred by excluding evidence offered to show the trap was not set in the manner required by law.
- The trial court’s charge improperly minimized the warden’s potential statutory justification and effectively removed from the jury the justification question as to seizure of the trap.
- Instructions on recovery for the bear were incomplete because they allowed a common-law capture theory without integrating statutory seizure powers tied to game-law violations.

## Legal Principles

- A fish and game warden’s statutory enforcement powers may authorize seizure and detention, for evidentiary purposes, of devices used unlawfully under game laws and wildlife connected to such violations.
- When an officer asserts statutory justification, evidence tending to show the underlying conduct was unlawful is material and should be admitted.
- In tort claims challenging enforcement seizures, jury instructions must account for statutory privilege and the illegal use of the property; a court may not assume the seizure was unlawful where legality depends on disputed facts about compliance with game statutes.
- A claimant’s possessory interest in captured wildlife does not control if the animal and device fall within statutory seizure authority due to unlawful trapping conditions.

## Conclusion

The court held that the legality of the seizure turned on whether the trap was illegally set and that the jury had to hear related evidence and receive instructions reflecting the warden’s statutory authority; because the trial court excluded material evidence and effectively directed liability, the plaintiff’s verdict could not stand.


Jones v. Metcalf, 96 Vt. 327, 119 A. 430 (Vt. 1923)