. ▁ ▁This ▁action ▁caused ▁the ▁n atives ▁( pla int iff ' s ▁pros pective ▁customers ) ▁to ▁fle e ▁the ▁scene , ▁dep riv ing ▁the ▁pla int iff ▁of ▁their ▁potential ▁business . ▁The ▁King ' s ▁Ben ch ▁court ▁held ▁the ▁conduct ▁action able . ▁ ▁The ▁def endant ▁claimed , ▁by ▁way ▁of ▁just ification , ▁that ▁the ▁local ▁native ▁r uler ▁had ▁given ▁it ▁an ▁exclusive ▁franch ise ▁to ▁trade ▁with ▁his ▁subjects , ▁but ▁the ▁court ▁rejected ▁this ▁defense . ▁ ▁The ▁tort ▁was ▁described ▁in ▁the ▁case ▁of ▁K ee ble ▁v ▁H ick ering ill , ▁( 1 7 0 7 ) ▁ 1 0 3 ▁Eng . ▁Rep . ▁ 1 1 2 7 , ▁sty led ▁as ▁a ▁" tres pass ▁on ▁the ▁case ". ▁In ▁that ▁case , ▁the ▁def endant ▁had ▁used ▁a ▁shot gun ▁to ▁drive ▁du cks ▁away ▁from ▁a ▁p ond ▁that ▁the ▁pla int iff ▁had ▁built ▁for ▁the ▁purpose ▁of ▁capt uring ▁du cks . ▁Thus , ▁unlike ▁the ▁for ego ing ▁cases , ▁here ▁the ▁action able ▁conduct ▁was ▁not ▁directly ▁driving ▁the ▁pros pective ▁customers ▁away , ▁but ▁rather ▁elimin ating ▁the ▁subject ▁matter ▁of ▁the ▁pros pective ▁business . ▁Although ▁the ▁du cks ▁had ▁not ▁yet ▁been ▁captured , ▁the ▁Justice ▁Hol t ▁wrote ▁for ▁the ▁court ▁that ▁" where ▁a ▁violent ▁or ▁mal icious ▁act ▁is ▁done ▁to ▁a ▁man ' s ▁occupation , ▁profession , ▁or ▁way ▁of ▁getting ▁a