82 THE ZOOLOGIST. 
of an action for trespass brought by the Bishop of London in 
1523 against a defendant to whom he had leased the park for 
grazing purposes, and who had taken some of the birds out of 
the trees, which by his lease the Bishop had expressly reserved. 
The report, which is written in Norman French and printed 
in black letter, with numerous contractions, I have transcribed 
literatim et verbatim ; but, as it is too long to be given here in its 
entirety, I will quote only so much of it as relates directly to the 
Herons and Shovelers, condensing the arguments put forward on 
behalf of the parties to the action :— 
“ De Termino Michaelis Anno xiv Regni Regis Henrici Octavt. 
~ 
“En trespas port D VEvesque de Lord envs un N. p son 
clos infreint & pur prisel de Herons & Shovelers. Le deff dit 7 
le lieu ou &e contén xx acres de terre que le dit Evesque lessa a 
luy tm des ans & les Herons fesoient lou? nids deins &e & il 
eux prist. Ht le pl. dit q le lieu &c. est nom un Park, que le pl. 
lessa al’ def. except le bois & subbois, & les Herons & Shovelers 
fesoient lour nids in les dits arbres, & il eux prist; sur que &c.” 
In plain English this would read :— 
“Michaelmas Term in the 14th year of the reign of King 
Henry VIII. 
“An action of trespass brought by the Bishop of London 
against one N. for having broken his close, and for taking Herons 
and Shovelers. The defendant says that the place where &¢ 
contains twenty acres of land; that the said Bishop leased it to 
him for a term of years, and the Herons made their nests 
therein &¢ and he took them. And the plaintiff says that the 
place &c is called a Park, that the plaintiff leased it to the 
defendant, excepting the wood and underwood, and the Herons 
and Shovelers made their nests in the said trees and he took 
them. Upon which &c [ judgment is prayed.]” 
Briefly stated, the chief argument for the defendant was that 
the plaintiff was entitled to no more than was implied by the 
words ‘‘wood and underwood,” that being all that he had 
reserved by his lease, and that the birds could not be included, 
as they were not expressly mentioned in the lease. On behalf of 
the Bishop it was contended that in as much as he had expressly 
