[1] Samuel Keeble (the plaintiff) owned property called Minott's Meadow, which contained a pond outfitted with nets and channels in a manner used to catch large numbers of commercially viable ducks.

On three occasions, defendant Edmund Hickeringill, while on his own land, discharged firearms toward Keeble's pond in order to scare away the ducks.

[2] Chief Justice Holt sustained the action of trespass on the case, because every person has the right to put his property to use for his own pleasure and profit.

But, Hickeringill actively disturbed the ducks on Keeble's land, thereby causing damages in that, he that hinders another in his trade or livelihood is liable.Furthermore, Keeble had gone through the expense of setting up the decoy and nets, and to allow Hickeringill to disturb the profitable use of the land was bad for commerce.

Thus, Justice Holt concluded that in short, that which is the true reason for this action is not brought to recover damage for the loss of the fowl, but for the disturbance.On appeal, made by Hickeringill the verdict was re-affirmed without any change.