78 THE WILD-FOWLER. 



of the plaintiff's decoy, when two or three hundred wild-fowl came 

 out. Defendant afterwards approached nearer, and fired ag'ain at 

 wild-fowl on the wing-, at a distance of about two hundred yards and 

 upwards from the pond, when he killed several widg-eon, and imme- 

 diately on the report of the gain, four or five hundred wild-fowl took 

 flig-ht from the decoy. Evidence of the antiquity of the decoy, and 

 plaintiff's rig'ht to the same, having- been shewn, Macdonald, C.B., 

 held, that an ancient decoy would be protected at law as well as 

 ancient rights, or the enjoyment of a watercourse; and left the 

 evidence of wilful disturbance to the jury, who found a verdict for 

 the plaintiff, with forty shilling-s damag-es. 



A motion was afterwards made to set aside the verdict as being 

 against law and evidence ; the defendant, it was argued, having- a 

 right to shoot at wild-fowl in an open creek or arm of the sea, where 

 the tide ebbed and flowed, and not having- gone upon the plaintiff's 

 land or fired into the decoy. The Court, however, refused to grant 

 a rule, stating that they saw no reason for disturbing the verdict.* 



The statutes against larceny and malicious injuries, and for the 

 protection of game, contain no clause regarding- decoys; but the 

 1st and 2nd Wm. IV. cap. 32 prohibits, under certain restrictions, 

 the taking of wild-fowls' eggs. 



* Vide Dixon's " Law of tlie Farm," p. 290 ; Chitty's " General Practice of tlie 

 Law," vol. i. pp. 89 and 188 ; Wooliych's " Grume Laws," &c.j &c. 



