THE LAW OF DECOYS. 77 



flying- abroad, yet he has when they are in liis decoy ; and he must 

 not be wilfully disturbed or hindered by other men in his operations. 



If a man wilfully or maliciously drives wild-fowl away from, or 

 prevents their going- to a decoy, that is actionable. 



In case of a modernly-established decoy, which may not have at- 

 tained long or uninterrupted qiiietude of enjoyment ; it is lawful to 

 fire off a gun or shoot from one's own land at wild-fowl which may 

 be apparently going direct to the pond, and at the time very near to 

 the same. But secus in the case of an old-established decoy. 



The remedy is by action on the case, when the injury has been 

 committed outside the decoy ; but by action of trespass when com- 

 mitted within the decoy-grounds. 



Decoys have long been considered valuable and remunerative pro- 

 perty. A very important case, materially affecting them, was 

 heard before Holt, C.J., in Trinity Term, 5tli Anne, when the law 

 upon the subject was clearly laid down by that learned judge, and 

 has never since been over-ruled. The case alluded to, is Keeble v. 

 Eicheringall* The defendant was Lord of a Manor and had a 

 decoy : plaintiff had also made a decoy on his own ground next 

 adjoining, and only a short distance from the other. The defendant 

 went with his gun to the head of his neighbour's pond, and, by 

 shooting several times, frightened away a number of ducks. The 

 declaration stated that the defendant, " maliciously and fraudulently 

 intending to take away from the plaintiff the benefit and yearly 

 profit which he made of his said decoy, &.G., and that he did with his 

 gun come to the head of plaintiff's pond, and there did several times 

 shoot, and thereby frightened away plaintiff's ducks from his decoy." 

 A verdict was obtained for the plaintiff, with £20 damages. After 

 which, the case was again argued before Chief Justice Holt on motion 

 for arrest for judgment; when his Lordship refused to disturb the 

 verdict, being clearly of opinion that cause of action arose and was 

 well maintained. 



In a more recent case — Carrington v. Taylor f — which was an 

 action on the case for disturbing the plaintiff's ancient decoy at 

 Beaumont-cum-Maze, Essex. It appeared that the defendant in part 

 earned his living by wild-fowl-shooting ; and the only proof of dis- 

 turbance to the decoy was, that being in his boat in an open creek, 

 he first fired his fowling-piece within about a cpuarter-of-a-mile 



* 11 Mad., 74 and 130 ; Holt's Rep., 14; 3 Salk, 9 ; Biillei's N. P., 79. 

 t 11 East, 571 ; 2 Camp, 258. 



