case Keble against HICKRINGILL S c east d see mogul sacred scripture company v  mgregor go company a c Allen v flood a c a declaration in a action on the case  that the defendant be possess of a certain close and a decoy therein and that  the defendant know and with intention to injure he by prevent duck from come  to the decoy do on diverse time malicious shoot off gun c be good although it  be not state that the defendant enter the close S c post S c salk S c holt the  question be whether a action upon the case for shoot at disturb and scare wile  duck modern report from a decoypond without come upon the plaintiff soil be  such a damage as to support this action darnel sergeant a see the several  objection take in this case S c holt a wile duck be not such game as the law  take notice of nor be a decoy a franchise or comprehend within the word  royalty which the court say signify a free warren but royalty have no such  signification as be here claim neither can a lord of a manor justify under a  royalty to fish bunt or fowl in another man soil b Jones vent b a decoy be not  a privilege place if it be he must have it by grant or prescription c  Fitzherbert n b lev c there be only a possessory property so as to kill they  when they be there Broderick sergeant contra the declaration be that the  plaintiff be possess of a piece of ground whereupon a decoy c and that the  defendant wickedly intend to deprive he of the benefit come to the pondhead  and there disturb c and after verdict for the plaintiff the court will intend  a entry upon his ground though it be not lie in the declaration and say he  come to the pondhead must be take to be his ground a man while thing that be  fer nature be upon his ground or soil have such a possessory property that if  one kill the game though he do not enter he shall have a action of trespass  for enter his ground d Keilway d and shall recover damage for the thing kill e  Henry pl e if a man put up a hare in my ground and follow it and kill it in  the ground of I S yet I may take it if a man have a market and right of toll  and another disturb people come to the market it be uncertain whether any good  may be sell and consequent no ill yet for the possibility of sale I may have a  action a man ought not so to use that which be his own as to hurt the property  of another whenever there be malice and damage a man may have a action on the  case f keb and vent f holt chief justice say he be not satisfy with this case  it be agree on all hand that while the duck be in the pond the plaintiff have  a property and the defendant be a wrongdoer to disturb he but to intend that  he enter or that he come upon his ground will be too material to modern report  intend it be trespass but suppose the defendant have shoot in his own ground  if he have have occasion to shoot it will have be one thing but to shoot on  purpose to damage the plaintiff be another thing and a wrong he liken it to  the case of a market and toll it must be take as it be find upon the record  but it be find to be do wickedly and so it appear upon the evidence Powell  justice every one have a property of thing fer nature ration soli a man may  have a free warren in another man soil which he have ration privilegi and not  soli for one man may have a privilege in another man freehold a man may have  such a property in hare as if he put it up in his ground and course and kill  it in another man ground still the original property be in he and the course  be a continuance of this property as this case be the defendant have do a  injury to the plaintiff property for by frighten they away you have destroy  his property powys and gold justice to the same intent a man may lawful shoot  in modern report er p his own ground as to kill venison c but not to destroy  malicious the property of another adjourn and to stand in the paper until next  term a in Trinity term whether holt chief justice deliver the opinion of the  court S c post and judgement be give for the plaintiff S c holt a