## Facts

- Rabbits (wild animals) were killed on land belonging to the Crown and left stored in a ditch on that land.
- Townley later returned to the storage place and carried the dead rabbits away, intending to appropriate them.
- It was assumed Townley had participated in killing and caching the rabbits.
- Townley was charged with larceny based on the taking of the dead rabbits from Crown land.
- Townley was convicted at trial and sought review on a reserved question of law.

## Issues

1. Whether rabbits, as wild animals, became the landowner’s personal property once killed on the landowner’s land, making them capable of being stolen.
2. Whether the Crown had possession (including constructive possession) of the dead rabbits while they lay on Crown land.
3. Whether Townley’s later removal could satisfy larceny’s trespassory taking requirement, even if he participated in killing and caching the rabbits.

## Decision

- The court upheld the larceny conviction.
- The court treated the rabbits, once killed on Crown land, as the Crown’s personal property.
- The Crown was deemed to have constructive possession of the carcasses while they remained on Crown land.
- Townley’s later carrying away constituted a trespassory taking and asportation of the property of another with felonious intent.

## Legal Principles

- Wild animals are not owned while alive and at liberty, but upon being killed on a person’s land they become that landowner’s personal property.
- Constructive possession may exist where property is on the owner’s land, even without physical handling by the owner.
- A defendant’s participation in unlawfully killing and caching game on another’s land does not confer ownership or a lawful possessory right.
- Removing such carcasses from the landowner’s land with intent to appropriate them can satisfy larceny’s requirements of taking and carrying away the property of another.

## Conclusion

The court sustained Townley’s larceny conviction because the rabbits became the Crown’s property when killed on Crown land, the Crown had constructive possession while they remained there, and Townley’s later removal was a trespassory taking of another’s property.


Queen v. Townley, 12 Cox C.C. 59 (Ct. Crown Cas. Reserved 1871)