Cotterill v. Penn
King’s Bench, County of Worcester
1 K.B. 53 (1936)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
Joseph Penn (defendant) was in his garden, preparing to shoot at wood pigeons and magpies that had been damaging the garden. Nearby, a neighbor released the neighbor’s personal homing pigeons. One of the homing pigeons flew into Penn’s sight, near his garden. The brightness of the sun made it difficult for Penn to see the pigeon clearly. Penn believed that the bird was a wood pigeon and fired, killing the homing pigeon. After realizing his mistake, Penn returned the dead bird to his neighbor and offered to pay for it. The neighbor refused the offer. Instead, the neighbor brought criminal charges against Penn under a statute that made it a criminal act for anyone to “unlawfully and willfully” kill someone else’s house pigeon. The neighbor argued that willfully shooting the pigeon was enough to violate this law, regardless of whether Penn knew he was shooting at a house pigeon. Penn argued that he could be found criminally liable only if he had a felonious intent, i.e., an intent to kill a house pigeon. Penn claimed that he had intended only to lawfully kill a wood pigeon and, therefore, lacked the felonious intent necessary to be held criminally liable.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
Dissent (Avory, J.)
Dissent (Hewart, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.