case Keeble against HICKERINGILL a decoy for wile duck be a kind of trade and  therefore a action on the case will lie for malicious prevent the wile duck  from come to the decoy S c ante S c salk S c holt holt chief justice deliver  the judgement of the court the declaration be that the plaintiff be lawful  possess of a close of land and a decoy therein and that the defendant know it  and intend to deprive he of the benefit thereof and to hinder the duck from  come to the decoy do on diverse time shoot off and discharge gun c malicious  and a verdict be find for the plaintiff first this decoy be a benefit to the  plaintiff and in nature of a trade and there be the same reason that he shall  be repair in damage for his decoy as for any other trade it be true there may  be a damnum without in an unjust manner a yearbook Henry pl or a if a man set  up the same trade as I in the same town this be a damage to I but modern  report it be without in an unjust manner for it be lawful for he to set up the  same trade if he please b yearbook or Edward foe b but this action be bring  for disturb the wildduck come to his decoy and so be in the nature of disturb  he from exercise his trade and therefore he need not set forth how many duck  which be the exception take at the bar c see cro James Owen c also this be not  like Playters case d   d which be pisces swine to take in hand and do not say  how many nor of what nature for in this case it be impossible to say how many  because the action be bring for disturb they come only to his decoy second the  statute Henry c enumerate what be wildfowl so that the law take notice of  wildfowl and show what it be and we must take notice of it too or else how can  we obey this law three there be a difference between this case and that of  franchise for if I have a fair market ferry or the like grant to I no man else  shall use another to my damage for these be of a public nature and diverse  person beside the grantee have a interest in they and if I do not repair my  ferry c I be indictable and therefore no man shall erect and use another ferry  c to my damage but any man may free use a private franchise as a park warren  way c fourthly this case be not like Playters case about take fish out of a  pond c for in that it be trespass to have damage for the thing take and  therefore it be necessary to set out how many and of what nature but this  action be trespass on the case to have a recompense for a consequential damage  or injury and be for hinder I from exercise my private right for those duck  may have come to in decoy to my benefit which be here hinder to my damage c  and accord to this be cite a case in one of the yearbooks where a action be  bring by the owner of a market for hinder horse be bring to the market and  adjudge that it well lie though it do not appear in certain that anybody will  have bring they and so where a person be hinder from go to a fair market  modern report c for it be injurious to hinder a man from go where he have a  right to go a Qure if not so where one be hinder from do what he have a right  to do though no special damage note to former edition a judgement be give for  the plaintiff b see S c holt b