Essay About Plaintiff Claims And Wild Game Birds

Keeble Law
Essay Preview: Keeble Law
Report this essay
Case Identification:
Queens Branch
Keeble v. Hickeringhill 1707,P.31, 11 East 574
Legally Significant Facts:
The plaintiff kept land to raise wild game birds for profit and entertainment.
The defendant discharged shotgun six times at the plaintiff’s pond and scared away birds.
On 3rd and 4th days later defendant returned near the pond, shot gun, and scared away birds.
Procedural History:
Plaintiff claims that defendant attempted to cause damage and loss of profit.
Defendant pleaded not guilty.
Issue:
Did defendant maliciously intend to disturb pond and cause the plaintiff a loss of profit?
Rule of Law:
You cannot maliciously or violently create a disturbance that will cause someone damage to their legal livelihood or profession.
Court’s Reasoning:
If one uses their skills to create a lawful profession or livelihood and you damage their profession you are liable for action. It is okay if you skillfully defeat competitor my taking up the same profession and attracting their clients. When you employ malice or violence to curb profits of another’s profession you cause damage. The selling of wild birds generates income for the plaintiff and allows to the plaintiff to participate in the market. If you engage in the market, you should reap the benefits of doing such