i6 



THE BOOK OF DUCK DECOYS. 



order that he might supply the markets with valuable produce, and so be 

 recompensed by the sale thereof. 



"That the person who made the Decoy should benefit by the skill, 

 outlay, and care requisite to construct and manage it. 



" Thus the owner of a Decoy had every reason to expect the law to 

 protect him from wilful injury to it." 



The compensation allowed was ^20, not for the actual loss of the 

 fowl, as such could not well be calculated, but for the disturbance of the 

 Decoy, which really means the same thing. 



This case was known as Keeble v. Hickeringfall. 



THE i\I.\N WHO KILLS 1111, 



.. LSI UK THE DECi 



Another case of the kind occurred afterwards — an interesting one, as 

 it was shown that no one had a right to wilfully disturb a Decoy even 

 from the distance of several hundred yards, or when in a boat on tidal 

 water. 



The action arose from a wildfowl shooter on a tidal creek near the 

 Decoy, firing a gun from his boat on purpose to disturb the ducks. After 

 alarming, and so driving the fowl from the shelter of the Decoy, the 

 shooter shot several as they passed near him. He did not approach the 

 Decoy nearer than 200 yards. 



The defendant reasoned that he had every right to fire at wildfowl 



