THE BOOK OF DUCK DECOYS. |
| "That in doing so he was put to considerable expense and trouble, in order that he might supply the markets with valuable produce, and so be recompensed by the sale thereof. "That the person who made the Decoy should benefit by the skill, outlay, and care requisite to construct and manage it. "Thus the owner of a Decoy had every reason to expect the law to protect him from wilful injury to it." The compensation allowed was £20, not for the actual loss of the fowl, as such could not well be calculated, but for the disturbance of the Decoy, which really means the same thing. This case was known as Keeble V. Hickeringall. |
 |
| Another case of the kind occurred afterwards-an interesting one, as it was shown that no one had a right to wilfully disturb a Decoy even from the distance of several hundred yards, or when in a boat on tidal water. The action arose from a wildfowl shooter on a tidal creek near the Decoy, firing a gun from his boat on purpose to disturb the ducks. After alarming, and so driving the fowl from the shelter of the Decoy, the shooter shot several as they passed near him. He did not approach the Decoy nearer than 200 yards. |