This matter comes before me upon the petition of Frank Eberle for release upon habeas corpus from the custody of the sheriff of Henderson county, Ill. The petition shows the following facts: Petitioner is a citizen of the state of Iowa, and resides therein, lie is a member of, and stockhоlder in, the Crystal Lake Club, au Illinois corporation authorized to acquire and own real estatе in Illinois, and to use the same as a game and fish preserve, the charter of which corporаtion grants to the mem
The decision of this matter depends upon the nature or status, under our laws, of animals ferse naturae, аnd the rights which individuals, whether citizens and residents or nonresidents, may have therein or thereto. In the case of Geer v. Connecticut,
“To hunt and kill game is a boon or privilege granted, either expressly or impliedly, by the sovereign authority, not a right inhering in each individual; and consequently nothing is taken away from the individual when he is denied the privilege, at stated seasons, of hunting and killing gamе. * * * The ownership of the sovereign authority is in trust for all the people of the state, and hencе, by implication, it is the duty of the legislature to enact such laws as will best preserve the subject of thе trust, and secure its beneficial use in the future to the people of the state. But in any case the question of individual enjoyment is one of public policy, and not of private right.”
“We think the rule will not he questioned that a general statute regulating the killing of game, or restricting the right to kill it to certain portiоns of the year, applies as well to the game which a particular landowner may chanсe to iind on Ills own premises as to that which may be found on the land of others, or upon lands belonging to the public.”
But petitioner says he is not challenging this right of the state; that, admitting that the state has this power, yet he, as a landowner, cannot be placed on a different footing with respect to hunting game on his own premises from other landowners, simply on the ground that they are residents and he is a nonresident; and that the attempt to thus discriminate against him deprives him of the equal protection of the laws of this state. I find that petitioner has not brought himself within the rule he seeks to invoke. In his petition he statеs that he is a member of, and stockholder in, an Illinois corporation, which corporation is thе owner of the land on which he was hunting at the time it is alleged he violated the statute. Without, therefore, determining whether a nonresident landowner would be relieved from the provision of the statute in question when shooting wild game upon his own premises, I deny the petition on the ground that the allegations thereof do not entitle petitioner to the relief prayed.