## Facts

- Holbrook occupied a walled garden in which he grew valuable tulips and had previously experienced thefts.
- To deter intruders, Holbrook secretly set a loaded spring gun connected to wires that would discharge the gun if stepped on.
- Holbrook gave no notice or warning that the gun was set.
- William Bird, age 19, climbed over the wall while pursuing a stray peafowl and entered without permission but without intent to steal or cause damage.
- Bird, unaware of the device, stepped on a wire; the gun discharged and seriously wounded him above the knee, leaving him maimed and causing pain and medical expense.
- Bird sued in tort (“action on the case”); a jury found for Bird.
- Holbrook moved in arrest of judgment, arguing the pleadings stated no actionable wrong; the court denied the motion and left judgment for Bird in place.

## Issues

1. Whether a landowner may set a concealed, mechanically triggered spring gun without warning to protect property and avoid liability when it injures a trespasser who lacks felonious intent.
2. Whether the law permits a property owner to inflict by an indiscriminate mechanical device force that would be unlawful if used personally against a mere trespasser.
3. Whether setting and maintaining a hidden spring gun without notice constitutes actionable wrongful conduct toward persons who may enter in ignorance of the danger.

## Decision

- Judgment for Bird was affirmed; Holbrook was liable in damages for the injuries caused by the spring gun.
- The court treated the declaration as stating a valid cause of action based on the wrongful setting and keeping of a loaded spring gun without warning.
- The court rejected the defense that trespass alone justified the device, emphasizing that the spring gun could not distinguish between culpable and blameless entrants.
- The court applied the principle that a person cannot do indirectly, through a device, what the law would forbid doing directly.

## Legal Principles

- A landowner may not use deadly or seriously injurious force solely to protect property against trespass.
- A concealed spring gun is an indiscriminate mechanism and is unlawful when it is likely to injure persons who enter without criminal intent or for innocent reasons.
- Failure to provide notice or warning of a hidden, dangerous device supports liability when injury results from an entrant’s ignorance of the hazard.
- One may not accomplish by mechanical or indirect means what would be unlawful if done personally (e.g., shooting a mere trespasser).

## Conclusion

The court held that setting and maintaining an unannounced, concealed spring gun to protect property is actionable when it injures an entrant, because severe force cannot be justified by trespass alone and cannot be imposed indirectly through an indiscriminate trap.


Bird v. Holbrook, 130 Eng. Rep. 911 (C.P. 1825)