78 THE WILD-FOWLER. 



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

 out. Defendant afterwards approached nearer, and fired again at 

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

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

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

 flight 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 damages. 



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 the Farm," p. 290 ; Chitty's " General Practice of the 

 Law," vol. i. pp. 89 and 188 j Woolrych's " Game Laws," &c., &c. 



