Page 15 THE LAW OF DECOYS.

THE LAW OF DECOYS.

    A neighbour may on his own land, however near it, fire a gun at wildfowl passing over him, whether they be going toward the Decoy or otherwise, but he cannot fire a bullet or shot actually into or over the Decoy to wilfully disturb it, whether his object be to raise the ducks so that he may get shots at them as they pass near him, or merely to satisfy a grudge against the Decoyman by hindering his successes.
    Such conduct is actionable, because it is malicious injury to valuable property, as it would be did he light a fire to stink the ducks out of the Decoy, as has been sometimes done.
    If a man invade the Decoy he can, of course, be sued for a trespass by its owner in the ordinary way.
    If he, from outside the Decoy, though he be on his own land, wilfully cause damage to the Decoy by alarming the ducks in it with an evident malicious intent, he can be prevented by law, and the Decoy owner can recover compensation. For though the owner of a Decoy has no property in the wildfowl that frequent it, yet an action is maintainable at the suit of the Decoy owner if a person, in order to scare away the fowl and in the exercise of no reasonable right of his own, wilfully shoot even on his own land, because such an act is within the rule laid down that no man is to be injured in his trade.
    There are several well-known cases affecting the rights of Decoys, two of which I will briefly refer to.
    In 1706 an important test action was tried concerning the rights of a Decoy. Two Decoys were situated close to one another. One owner was jealous of the other's successes.
    He therefore went to the immediate vicinity of his rival's Decoy, and on two occasions fired off a gun repeatedly to damage it, and to frighten away the ducks in his neighbour's 9ecoy. This case was twice argued before the Court of King's Bench, and the arguments are fully given in "A Report of all the Cases determined by L. C. J. Holt," p.14.
    The judgement of the Court was given in favour of the plaintiff and was to this effect:-
    "That the plaintiff had learned the art of alluring wild ducks to a pond on his private property, and that he did so for his own pleasure and as he had every right to do.