APPENDIX TO PAET THIRD DIVISION II. 181 



different foundation from this. All the other instances which were 

 referred to in the argument on the part of the plaintiff are cases of ani- 

 mals specially protected by acts of Parliament, or which are clearly the 

 subjects of property. Thus hawks, falcons, swans, partridges, pheas- 

 ants, pigeons, wild ducks, mallards, teals, widgeons, wild geese, black 

 game, red game, bustards, and herons are all recognized by different 

 statute's as entitled to protection, and consequently in the eye of the 

 law are tit to be preserved. 



[KEEBLE VS. niCKERINGILL. HILARY TERM 5 ANNE, HOLT'S REPORTS, p. 17.] 



Action by owner of a decoy pond, frequented by wild fowl, against 

 one who shot off' a gun near his pond to the plaintiff's loss, etc. 



During the course of the discussion by the judges, Holt, C. J., said: 

 # * * "And the decoys spoil gentlemen's game, yet they are not 

 unlawful, for they bring money into the country. Dove cotes are law- 

 ful to keep pigeons. 



Powell: The declaration is not good, but this being a special action 

 on the case, it is helped by the verdict. If you frighten pigeons from 

 my dove cote, is not that actionable? 



Montague: Yes, for they have animum revertendi, and therefore you 

 have property. 



In Vol. ii, East's Reports, p. 571, is the case of Carrington vs. Tay- 

 lor, which is also a case upon the subject of injury to the owner of a 

 decoy pond. The reporter, in a note to this case, reports at length 

 Keeble vs. Hiekeringill, which he states "is taken from a copy of Lord 

 O. J. Holt's own MSS. in my possession." 



In this report it is said : " Holt, C. J. I am of opinion that this action 

 doth lie. It seems to be new in its instance, hut it is not new in the 

 leason or principle of it. * * * And we do know that of long time 

 in the kingdom these artificial contrivances of decoy ponds and decoy 

 ducks have been used for enticing into those ponds wild fowl, in order 

 to be taken for the profit of the owner of the pond, who is at the ex- 

 pense of servants, engines, and other management, whereby the mar- 

 kets of the nation maybe 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 ben- 

 efit and have their action. 



[NOTE 1, (PAGE 149). EXTRACT FROM OPINION OF CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL IN 

 CHURCH VS. IIUI5BART, 2 CR., 1ST.] 



That the law of nations prohibits the exercise of any act of author- 

 ity over a vessel in the situation of the Aurora, and that this seizure 

 is, on that account, a mere maritime trespass not within the exception, 

 cannot be admitted. To reason from the extent of the protection a nation 

 will afford to foreigners, to the extent of the means it may use for its own 

 security, does not seem to be perfectly correct. It is opposed by prin- 

 ciples which are universally acknowledged. The authority of a nation 

 within its own territory is absolute and exclusive. The seizure of a 

 vessel within the range of its cannon by a foreign force is an invasion 

 of that territory, and is a hostile act which it is its duty to repel. But 

 its power to secure itself from injury may certainly be exercised beyond 

 the limits of its territory. 



Upon this principle, the right of a belligerent to search a neutral 

 vessel on the high seas for contraband of war is universally admitted, 



