Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 10.djvu/71

Rh of the formula C20H23O4, together with moisture about 5 per cent., and a trace of ligneous ﬁbre. Its commonest adulterations are rice-ﬂour and pulverized bark. Some quantity of gamboge is shipped from Kampot in Camboja, but the principal planes of export are llangkok in Siam, and Sligon in Cochin China. Gamboge is a powerful hydra— gogue purgative, less drastic only than elaterium and croton oil. Like aloes, it appears to exert its chief influence on the lower bowel (Brit. and For. .l[ed.-(.'/zir. Rein, i., 1853, p 128), and in combination with compound colocynth pill it has been recommended by Dr Symonds as one of the most efﬁcient purgatives in torpor of the colon. The researches of Christison, Pabo, and Daraszkiewicz go to prove that gambogic acid alone is less cathartic than the same weight of gamboge ; according to the last—mentioned experimenter and Schaur, the presence of bile in thein testincs is requisite for the development of its action. In cerebral affections, as apoplexy, when great debility is not present, gamboge has proved to be a valuable counter—irritant purgative. It is sometimes employed as an anthelmintic, but appears to be devoid of any speciﬁc inﬂuence on entozoa. Some authorities regard it as decidedly diuretic in action. By Christison and others it has been found highly serviceable in dropsy. Abeille (quoted in Brit. and For. .1[e¢l.-('/zir. 13612., 1853, ii. p. 279) administered it for that disease, in alcoholic solution, in divided doses of 6 grains per diem, increased by 2 grains daily, and given two hours prior or subsequent to meals. “'ith the relief of the dropsy he observed that the patient’s toleration of these large quantities ceased. As gamboge is apt to occasion vomiting and grip- ing, it is usually administered in combination with milder remedies. It is an ingredient of the pilula camber/22c) com- posita of pharmacy. In overdoses it acts as an acrid poison, provoking violent emesis and catharsis, and abdominal pain, coldness of the extremities, and ulceration and morti- ﬁcation of the intestines, eventuating in death. Gamboge is used as a pigment, and as a colouring matter for varnishes. It appears to have been ﬁrst brought into Europe by merchants from the East, at the close of the 16th century. Bontius, writing in the year 1658, mentions it under the name of gutiaycmou, a word derived by 110st from the Malay guild/z, gum, and Javanese jrmm, medicinal. 13y the Chinese gamboge (Mng-lzwang and sleié-hwang) is understood to be “ serpent—bezoar,” a substance vomited 11p by serpents, or the product of a species of ratan, analogous to the tabasheer of the bamboo (F. P. Smith, Contrib. to- wards the .llal. .Illml,. . of China, 1871). Varieties of gambage are yielded by (y'axrcim'a Jlorellu, Desrous., a native of S. India and Ceylon, and by the Indian species G. pic-(oral, Roxb., and G. Iraz'ancorica, Beddome.

1em  GAME LAWS. This expression is applied in England to a series of statutes of modern date, establishing a peculiar kind of property in wild animals. These statutes, it is well known, are regarded with great dislike by a large and important section of the people—partly on account of their alleged injurious economic effects, and partly on account of their harsh and exceptional character. It will be well to state first the principles of the common law, and then to show how far they have been superseded by recent legislation. By the very nature of the case, wild animals cannot be made the subject of that absolute kind of ownership which is generally signiﬁed by the term property. The substan tial basis of the law of property is physical possession, the actual power of dealing with things as we see ﬁt, and we can have no such power over animals in a state of nature. Accordingly, the common law recognized nothing like pro- perty in wild animals, until they had, as it were, been re- duced into possession. Wild animals reclaimed or conﬁned become property, but the moment they escape from con- ﬁnement the property is gone, and the rights of the owner are lost. Even bees, which might well be described as domesticated and not wild animals, do not become property until they are hived. “Though a swarm lights on any tree,” says Bracton, “ I have no more property therein than I have in the birds which make their nests thereon." The owner of a conﬁned animal which escapes does indeed retain his property while he is in pursuit of the fugitive ; 7.9., no other person can, in the meantime, establish a right of pro- perty against him by capturing the animal, just as a swarm of bees “ which ﬂy from and out of my hive are mine so long as I can keep them in sight, and have power to pursue them.” Again, the law recognized a right in wild animals propter impotent-icon, 7.6., when they were young and unable to move from place to place. With these exceptions wild animals were res mcllz'us, capable of being made the pro- perty of any person reducing them into possession. A prior right to acquire property in such animals was, however, allowed to the owner (or occupier) of the soil. Thus it is said that “if A starts a hare in the ground of B, and hunts it and kills it there, the property continues all the while in B.” B is said to have a right of property in the wth animals on his land rations soli. But “if A starts a bare on the ground of B, and hunts it into the ground of C and kills it there, the property is in A, and not in B or C.” That is to say, the so—called property in wild animals ratz'ouc soli consists in this, that if one of them is started and killed by a trespasser it belongs to the owner (or occupier) of the soil. If the animal goes to another man’s land this inchoate right is transferred to the other man. And the inchoate right of the owner becomes an actual right of pro- perty only when the animal is both started and killed by the trespasser on the same man’s land. Such right as the owner has belongs to the occupier when the land is given without reserve to a tenant for a term. These principles, it will be observed, apply to all wild animals, and no distinction is made between game and other animals. The laws of the forest, however, established in derogation of the common law a different kind of property in certain classes of wild animals. For an account of these see. The forest code affected deﬁnite districts of the country, and the right which they protected was the exclusive right of hunting the animals of the forest within these districts. The game laws as above deﬁned have virtually taken the place of the forest laws. The latter protected the privilege of the king and his favourites to hunt certain animals in certain districts; the former have extended and protected the right of an owner of the soil to the chase of certain ani- mals on his own estate. The means adopted have been to make trespass (in itself only a civil wrong) a criminal offence punishable with great severity, and to restrict, by a system of licences, the right as well of killing as of selling game. The principal Acts are 1 it 3 William IV. c. 32 (the Game Act), 9 Geo. IV. c. 69 (the Night Poaching Act), 23 6: 2-1 Yiet. c. 90 (Game Licences Act), and the Hares Killing Act, 11 J: 12 Yict. c. 29. The Game Act repeals a large number of statutes on the subject, most of them passed in the 18th century. Game is deﬁned to include “hares, pheasants, partridges, grouse, heath or moor game, black game, and