Law Assignment: The Portrayal Beneath Subtle Elements (Essay Sample)

Name
Tutor
Task
Date
Law
The portrayal beneath subtle elements how three instances of law broke down adjusts with one another or varies regarding thinking and application of the law. Regularly distinctive cases have their own particular understanding, which can be supported by, time and environment and of the whole connection in which they are introduced. The litigants and offended parties could all be correct yet the judgment relies on upon the choices made by the judges in regards to the point of view the case is brought before them.
The first case involves a libellant angler who uses a bomb-lance to shoot a whale. This caused the whale to sink and resurface again; but upon resurfacing, the whale was claimed by another party who went ahead and sold it to the respondent. The libellant angler was not in agreement with this therefore went ahead to sue the respondent for converting the whale into his property and selling it. Normally, once an angler shot the whale, and it went away due to its first speed and power, the anglers ran after it searching for its whereabouts. It was customary to the people that anyone else who found the whale would give it to the angler who would then pay the finder a small token as fee for the service (Ann, 949). The whale was however considered to belong to the angler hence any breakage of this custom was considered a crime and was subject to trial in the court. In this case, the judge granted the libellant angler his judgment of which the judge ruled that the local usage gave title to the whale. This the judge further defended arguing that it was only reasonable that the first taker only commit to the action of appropriation which was argued viable in that context.
The second case has the plaintiff declaring that on November 8 of the second year of the queen, he possessed a close land called the Minott’s Meadow. A pond located in it was the habitat for wild fowls, which fed in it. The plaintiff claims that he used to catch the wild fowls and even had the tools, which he lists as procured decoy-ducks, machines, nets and engines to act as bait for the wild fowls. All these he did at his own cost and that he alone incurred the expenses hence had the right to the wild fowls he captured through the pond. This he did at the benefit that he would collect the wild fowls hence that was the reward he expected. The plaintiff claims that the defendant came with a gun loaded with powder near to the land of the plaintiff where the pond was and on finding the wild fowls, he shot out at them which necessitated their escape. They were lost for up to four months thus the plaintiff incurred many losses, as it was his investment (Ann, 949). The plaintiff resolved to sue the defendant for the damages, which upon the plea of not being guilty and the ruling of the case, the defendant had to pay the plaintiff a 20-pound damage compensation fee.
However, in this case the striking evidence brought in that makes it differ from the first case is that the defendant claimed he also had a decoy on his own land and therefore fired from his land claiming the verdict was insufficient. The argument in this case takes a deep delve into the concept of possessory rights. The defendant upon further reevaluation was found not to be guilty since he was shooting from his own ground at a decoy in his own land. This makes the case very similar to the first one where the concept of possessing is highlighted. However, unlike the first case, which argues that the local anglers by means of local use did possession, in this case the defendant had nothing to worry about as he only was exercising his freedom. The first case is a ruling that favors the community’s interests while the second case highlights a lot about the freedom of an individual in their own property (Ann, 949).
Similar in characters but different in context, the third case also involved a wild animal and two parties. The plaintiff claims that he found a fox while hunting with hounds and other dogs after which he open a chase. The area was in an unprocessed, uninhabited and a wasteland referred to as the beach. While chasing this fox, Pierson who is the defendant came in and knowing very well that the Post was chasing the fox and hunting it down. He also went after the fox to hunt it down shooting and killing it, after which he carried it off. This was very strategic to prevent Post from getting the fox hence was considered an interruption of ones business. With the verdict passed implica...