APPENDIX TO PART THIRD DIVISION I. 115 



[Child v. Greenbill (3 Croke, 553).] 



Trespass for entering - and breaking plaintiffs close and fishing and 

 taking fish in his seveial fishery. Contended for the defendant that lie 

 conld not say "his" fishes, for he hath not any property in the fish 

 until he takes them and has thera in his possession. Attorneys for 

 plaintiff maintained that they were in his several fishery, and that he 

 might say "his" fishes, for there was not any other that might take 

 them, and all the court was of that opinion. 



[Keeble v. Hickeringill, 11 East's, 574.] 



Action upon the case. Plaintiff declares that he was, November 

 8, in the second year of the Queen, lawfully possessed of a close 

 of land called Miuott's Meadow, et da quodam vivario vocato, a decoy 

 pond, to which divers wild fowl used to resort and come; and the plain- 

 tiff had, at his own costs and charges, prepared and procured divers 

 decoy ducks, nets, machines, and other engines for the decoying and 

 taking of the wild fowl, and enjoyed the benefit in taking them; the 

 defendant, knowing which, and intending to damnify the plaintiff in 

 his vivary, and to fright and drive away the wild fowl used to resort 

 thither, and deprive him of his profit, did on the 8th of November, re- 

 sort to the head of the said pond and vivary, and did discharge six 

 guns laden with gunpowder, and with the noise aud stink of the gun- 

 powder did drive away the wild fowl then being in the pond ; and on the 

 11th and 12th days of November the defendant, with design to damnify 

 the plaint iff, and fright away the wild fowl, did place himself with a gun 

 near the vivary, and there did discharge the said gun several times 

 that was then charged with tl\a gunpowder against the said decoy 

 pond, whereby the wild fowl were frighted away, and did forsake the 

 said pond. Upon not guilty pleaded, a verdict was found for the 

 plaintiff and £'20 damages. 



Holt, C. J. : I am of opinion that this action doth lie. It seems to be 

 new in its instance, but is not new in the reason or principle of it. For, 

 first, this using or making a decoy is lawful; secondly, this employ- 

 ment of his ground to that use is profitable to the plaintiff, as is the 

 skill and management of that employment. As to the first, every man 

 that hath a property may employ it for his pleasure and profit, as lor 

 alluring and procuring decoy ducks to come to his pond. To learn the 

 trade of seducing other ducks to come there in order to be taken is not 

 prohibited either by the Jaw of the laud or the moral law; but it is as 

 lawful to use art to seduce them, to catch them, and destroy them for 

 theuse of mankind, as to kill and destroy wild fowl or tame cattle. Then 

 when a man useth his art or his skill to take them to sell and dispose of 

 for his profit, this is his trade; and he that hinders another in his trade 

 or livelihood is liable to an action for so hindering him. 



VP # $r ^ # ^ T& 



And when we do know that of long time in the kingdom these arti- 

 ficial contrivances of decoy ponds and decoy ducks have been used for 

 enticing into these ponds wild fowl in order to be taken for the profit 

 of the owner of the pond, who is at the expense of servants, engines, 

 and other management, whereby the markets of the nation may be 

 furnished, there is great reason to give encouragement thereunto; that 

 the people who are so instrumental by their skill and industry so to 

 furnish the markets should reap the benefits and have their action. 

 But, in short, that which is the true reason is that this action is not 



