CfaOUGHS, CROWS, AND ROOKS. 49 



" 1595. Oct. Nov. To the collectors of Chevington for the statute of 

 Crows and destroying of vermin . xxd." 



Again, in the Churchwarden's Accounts at South Cadbury, in 

 Somersetshire, commencing in 1590, very faded and imperfect, 

 the following items occur : — 



"1592 imprimis a Rooks nett js. 



1625 „ a Rooks nett 



1627 for mending the Rook nett js. vjd." 



In the succeeding reign, however, it would appear from a 

 memorandum made by John Aubrey, that although the statute 

 was still unrepealed, it was either disregarded or not strictly 

 enforced. In his notes for a ' Natural History of Wiltshire,' 

 written between 1656 and 1691, and edited by John Britton, 

 F.S.A., in 1847, the following paragraph occurs : — 



" In the peacefull raigne of King James I. the Parliament made an Act 

 for provision of Rooke-netts and catching Crows to be given in charge of 

 Court-barons, which is by the stewards observed, but I never knew the 

 execution of it. I have heard knowing countrymen affirme that Rooke- 

 wormes, which the Crowes and Rookes doe devour at sowing time, do turne 

 to chafers, which I think are our English locusts; and some yeares wee 

 have such fearfull armies of them that they devour all manner of green 

 things ; and if the Crowes did not destroy these wormes, it would often 

 times happen. Parliaments are not infallible, and some thinke they were 

 out in this bill " {pp. cit. p. 67). 



We gather from this observation that the truth was then 

 beginning to dawn upon agriculturists that the Rook, instead of 

 being an enemy to crops, might be a useful ally in extirpating the 

 destructive wire-worm. 



The statute in question was cited as late as the year 1824, in 

 the case of " Hannam v. Mockett," then tried in the Court of 

 King's Bench.* The plaintiff in this action declared that he 

 was " seised of a certain dwelling house with a vivary, there 

 called a ' Kookery,' " which Rookery " was ornamental and advan- 

 tageous to his said dwelling-house, and afforded great satisfaction 

 and delight to him the said plaintiff," and he sought to recover 

 damages against the defendant for maliciously firing guns near 

 his Rookery, whereby the Rooks were so "disturbed and terrified'' 



Hannam v. Mockett, 4 D. & R. 518 ; 2 B. & Ci 934 



