THE LAW OF DECOYS. 15 



A neighbour may on his own land, however near it, fire a gun at 

 wildfowl passing over him, whether they be going toward the Decoy or 

 otherwise, but he cannot fire a bullet or shot actually into or over the 

 Decoy to wilfully disturb it, whether his object be to raise the ducks so 

 that he may get shots at them as they pass near him, or merely to satisfy 

 a grudge against the Decoyman by hindering his successes. 



Such conduct is actionable, because it is malicious injury to valuable 

 property, as it would be did he light a fire to stink the ducks out of the 

 Decoy, as has been sometimes done. 



If a man invade the Decoy he can, of course, be sued for a trespass by 

 its owner in the ordinary way. 



If he, from outside the Decoy, though he be on his oivn land, wilfully 

 cause damage to the Decoy by alarming the ducks in it with an evident 

 malicious intent, he can be prevented by law, and the Decoy owner 

 can recover compensation. For though the owner of a Decoy has no 

 property in the wildfowl that frequent it, yet an action is maintainable at 

 the suit of the Decoy owner if a person, in order to scare away the fowl 

 and in the exercise of no reasonable right of his own, wilfully shoot even 

 on his own land, because such an act is within the rule laid down that no 

 man is to be injured in his trade. 



There are several well-known cases affecting the rights of Decoys, 

 two of which I will briefly refer to. 



In 1706 an important test action was tried concerning the rights of a 

 Decoy. Two Decoys were situated close to one another. One owner was 

 jealous of the other's successes. 



He therefore went to the immediate vicinity of his rival's Decoy, and 

 on two occasions fired off a gun repeatedly to damage it, and to frighten 

 away the ducks in his neighbour's Decoy. This case was twice argued 

 before the Court of King's Bench, and the arguments are fully given in 

 " A Report of all the Cases determined by L. C. J. Holt," p. 14. 



The judgment of the Court was given in favour of the plaintiff, and 

 was to this effect : — 



" That the plaintiff had learned the art of alluring wild ducks to a 

 pond on his private property, and that he did so for his own pleasure and 

 profit, as he had every right to do. 



" That in doing so he was put to considerable expense and trouble, in 



