180 



not nfT'ect any right of personal security or personal liberty, nor any 

 property in possession or in action; and the question then is, whether 

 there is any injury to any property the plaintitf had a special right to 

 acquire. A man in trade has a right in his fair chances of profit, 

 and he gives up time and capital to obtain it. It is for the good of the 

 public that he should. But has it ever been held that a man has 

 a right in the chance of obtaining animals /erte natiirw, where he is 

 at no expense in enticing them to his premises, and where it may be 

 at leas*: questionable whether they will be of any service to him, and 

 whether, indeed, they will not be a nuisance to the neighborhood!? 

 This is not a claim pro])ter impotcntiam, because they are young, propter 

 solum, because they are on the plaintiff's land, or propter iu(lust)-i((m, 

 because the plaintiff has brought them to the place or reclaimed them, 

 but propter usum et eonsuetudenem of the birds. Tiiey, of their own 

 choice, and without any exi^enditure or trouble on his part, have a pre- 

 dilection for his trees and are disposed to resort to them. But has he 

 a legal right to insist that they shall be permitted to do so? Allow 

 the right as to these birds and how can it be denied as to all others? 

 In considering a claim of this kind the nature and properties of the 

 birds are not immaterial. Tlie law makes a distinction between ani- 

 mals fitted for food and those which are not; between those which are 

 destructive to private property and those which are not; between those 

 which have received protection by common law or by statute and those 

 which have not. It is not alleged in this declaration that these rooks 

 were fit for food; and we know in fact that tliey are not generally so 

 used. So far from being protected by law they have been looked ui)on 

 by the legislature as destructive in their nature, and as nuisances to 

 the neighborhood where they are. That being so, surely a party can 

 have no right to have them resort to his lauds, to the injury of liis 

 neighbors; and, consequently, no action can be maintainable against 

 a person who prevents their so doing. * * * They certainly answer 

 tlic descrii)tion of animals /era* naturw. They are not protected by any 

 statute, but on the contrary have been declared by the legislature to 

 be a nuisance to the neighborhood where they are. That being so, it 

 is quite clear no i)erson can claim a right to have them resort to his 

 lands, nor can any person become a wrongdoer by preventing their so 

 doing. Keehle v. Hiclceringlll bears a stronger resemblance to the pres- 

 ent than any other case, but it is distinguishable. There it was decided 

 that an action on the case lies for discharging guns near the decoy 



