case dwell against sander the erect of a new pigeonhouse by the freeholder of  a manor be not a common nuisance inquirable at the leet but if the pigeon fly  abroad to the damage of the king subject the judge of assize may take  cognizance of it ante roll ab roll ab   more f n b hawk p c a man may kill  pigeon come on his own land and the owner of they have no remedy unless they  be take contrary to the direction of some statute a offence enquirable in a  leet must be state to have be commit within its jurisdiction the lord of a  manor can licence a tenant to do any act to the common nuisance c trespass  upon demurrer the case be that the plaintiff be a freeholder within the manor  of Isleworth whereof the earl of Northumberland be lord and have a leet erect  a new dovecote thereon and store it with pigeon and suffer they to fly out and  in which be present in the leet as a common nuisance and a amercement of forty  shilling assess and afeard for his offence and a pain of ten pound impose that  he shall stop croak throw it up before such a day and be do not stop it up  accord to the say pain whereupon it be present at the next court and the pain  impose and afeard to twelve pound and for nonpayment a distress take and he  enter into bind for the payment of the say twelve pound and bring trespass for  the take of his cattle and detail they until he have enter bind for the  payment of the say twelve pound and the defendant disclose all this matter by  way of plea the plaintiff thereupon demurrer and after diverse argument at the  bar it be argue at the bench by Montague chief justice croak Doderidge and  Houghton justice and they all agree that the plea be ill in substance as well  as in form for they all hold that t e erect a dovecote by a freeholder who be  not lord of the manor nor owner of the rectory and replenish it with dove be  not any nuisance inquirable or punishable in a leet Henry pl ass pl Henry pl  for nothing be inquirable there and punishable but that which be a common  nuisance to all people but this erect a dovehouse can be a nuisance but to  those only who corn they eat and not to all person and therefore it be no  common nuisance inquirable there also if it be a common nuisance neither the  lord of the manor nor the parson can erect a dovehouse more than any other  freeholder for none can prescribe to make a common nuisance for it can have a  lawful beginning by licence or otherwise be a offence against the commonlaw as  it be adjudge in full v sander ante for a common nuisance be to the prejudice  of all people and it be a continue offence and can be dispense with and  therefore they hold the opinion report   b Boulston v hardy in this point to  be no law and no direct resolution in point of judgement also the principal  case prove the contrary for if it be a nuisance every one who have a  particular grief may have a action to punish it as   William case but this can  be say to be a nuisance which the law protect and favour and for the  maintenance whereof statute be provide for it appear that a dovecote be  demandable in a praecipe next in regard to a house and dower shall be thereof  as Edward pl and Henry pl and a account lie de columbaria as Henry pl and  therefore the commonlaw do not regard it as a nuisance and the statute law be  diverse which make provision against those who take or kill they or shoot near  a dovehouse and for that purpose also see the croak James er p statute of  Edward title leet that the destruction of dove be enquirable in leet Edward c  that none shall shoot at any dovecote Elizabeth c which appoint cost for the  take of crow provide that they take not any dove James c that none shall shoot  within a hundred pace of any dovehouse wherefore they all agree that this be  not any offence enquirable nor punishable in a leet but Montague say if those  who have not any land at all shall erect dovehouse and increase multitude of  pigeon to the grievance of the country it may be inquire of before the justice  of assize who have the like authority as to such thing as the justice in oyer  croak throw have to redress they upon the people complaint but not every lord  within his leet for the leet be to redress nuisance within the precinct  thereof and not to extend further and the erect of a dovehouse be not in  itself a nuisance but the store it with pigeon and suffer they to fly abroad  into the country which be out of the leet wherefore for these reason it be  adjudge for the plaintiff note that in the argument of this case justice  Doderidge say that if pigeon come upon my land may kill they and the owner  have not any remedy but the owner of the land be to take heed that he take  they not by any mean prohibit by the statute a to which opinion croak and  Houghton accord but Montague hold the contrary and that the party have law  quality in they for they be as domestic and have mind see revertor  and ought  not to be kill and for the kill of they a action lie but the other opinion be  the best Doderidge also say that the avowry be ill for as they have plead they  have not make it enquirable within the leet or they ought to inquire of public  nuisance make within the precinct of their leet and not of nuisance make in  the county out of their jurisdiction but in this case they say that he erect a  dovecote within the leet et quod columbae volaba et revolaba and consume the  corn ad nocumentum all palriae but they do not show that they consume any corn  within the leet note also that where it be say in the end of the last argument  that the erect of a dovecote be a liberty signorial and not royal videlicet  that the lord of a manor may licence a freeholder to erect a dovecote Montague  chief justice who before say so do now deny it and say that if it be a  nuisance neither the king nor the lord of the manor can give any liberty to  erect a common nuisance and therefore Edward pl licence to make a nuisance be  void and Henry if a man will plead a pardon for a nuisance it be void as for  the continuance thereof