the alleged trespasses the freehold of one M. N.; and the defendants on the said 13th of April, 1876. by the leave and licence of the said M. N., entered upon the said land, which is the grievance complained of.

Claim for Trespass to Land.

1. The plaintiffs were at the time of the committing of the grievances hereinafter mentioned in possession and occupation of certain land situate at P., in the parish of C., in the county of L., adjoining certain land in the occupation of the defendant, and lying between such land and a certain highway called the B. Bank.

2. Before May 8th, 1876, the defendant had on divers times broken and entered the said land and passed and repassed thereon with horses, carts, waggons, a steam-engine and cultivator, doing thereby considerable damage to the plaintiffs' land and crops.

3. On the 8th of May, 1876, the defendant by himself and his servants wrongfully broke and entered the said land of the plaintiffs, and broke down a certain fence which had been erected by the plaintiffs on the said land, and trampled and injured the crops of the plaintiffs growing upon the said land, and the defendant threatens to repeat and continue the said trespasses.

The plaintiffs claim :

(1.) £100 damages for the trespasses by the defendant herein before mentioned.

(2.) A perpetual injunction to restrain the defendant, his servants and workmen, from continuing or repeating the said trespasses.

(3.) Such further relief, &c.

Statement of Defence.

of defence..

1. The defendant denies that the plaintiffs were at the Statement alleged times respectively in possession or occupation of the said land.

2. The defendant denies the alleged trespasses respectively.

3. At the times of the alleged trespasses there was and of right ought to have been a common and public highway over the said land where the alleged trespasses were committed for all persons to go and return on foot, and with horses, carts,

claim for

trespass, that the

public had a right of way over

the locus

in quo.

Defence to waggons, steam-engines, cultivators, and other carriages, at all times of the year at their free will and pleasure, and at the times of the alleged trespasses respectively the defendant and his said servants respectively, having occasion to use the said way, entered into and upon the said land and along the said highway, then using the same as he and they lawfully might for the cause aforesaid, and in so doing necessarily trampled upon the crops growing thereon; and because the said fence had been erected and then was wrongfully in and across the said highway, obstructing the same and preventing the convenient use thereof, the defendant and his said servants necessarily broke down the said fence for the purpose of using the said highway, doing no unnecessary damage in that behalf, which are the alleged trespasses complained of.

Prescrip

tion under

the statute.

Prescription by

lost grant.

4. At the times of the alleged trespasses the defendant was possessed of land the occupiers whereof, for the respective periods of twenty and forty years next before this suit, enjoyed as of right and without interruption a way for themselves and their servants on foot, and with horses, carts, waggons, steamengines, cultivators, and other carriages and agricultural implements, from a public highway over the said land where the alleged trespasses were committed to the said land of the defendant, and from the said land of the defendant over the said land where the alleged trespasses were committed to the said public highway at all times of the year, for the more convenient occupation of the said land of the defendant; and the defendant and his servants respectively by his command broke and entered the said land where the alleged trespasses were committed for the purpose of using the said way, and in using the same, and in so doing necessarily trampled upon and injured the crops growing thereon; and because the said fence had been placed and was then wrongfully in the said way obstructing the same, the defendant and his said servants by his command necessarily broke down the said fence for the purpose of using the said way, doing no unnecessary damage in that behalf, which are the alleged trespasses complained of.

5. At the times of the alleged trespasses the defendant was possessed, as tenant as hereinafter mentioned, of the said land in the 1st paragraph of the statement of claim referred to as being in the occupation of the defendant, and long before the alleged trespasses, by deed made between the then owner of the

said land where the alleged trespasses were committed, and which said owner was then seised thereof in fee, and the then owner of the said land of the defendant, and which last-mentioned owner was then seised in fee of the said land of the defendant (but which deed has been lost or destroyed by accident), the said then owner of the said land where the alleged trespasses were committed granted to the then owner of the said land of the defendant, and to his heirs and assigns, a way for himself and his tenants and his or their servants on foot and with horses, carts, waggons, steam-engines, cultivators, and all other cattle, carts, carriages, and farm implements, from a certain public highway over the said land where the alleged trespasses were committed to the said land of the defendant, and from the said land of the defendant over the said land where the alleged trespasses were committed to the said public highway, for the more convenient occupation of the said land of the defendant; and before the alleged trespasses, the person who then had the estate of the said then owner of the said land of the defendant demised the said land of the defendant with the appurtenances to the defendant, to hold the same thence for a term which has not yet expired, and by virtue of which said demise the defendant afterwards and before the alleged trespasses entered into the said land of the defendant, with the appurtenances so demised as aforesaid, and became and until and at the respective times of the alleged trespasses was possessed thereof, and the defendant, as and being such tenant of the said land of the defendant, was entitled to the said right for himself and his servants, and the defendant and his said servants broke and entered the said land where the alleged trespasses were committed for the purpose of using, and in using the said way, and in so doing necessarily trampled on and injured the crops growing thereon; and because the said fence had been placed and was then wrongfully in the said way obstructing the same, the defendant and his said servants by his command necessarily broke down the said fence for the purpose of using the said way, doing no unnecessary damage in that behalf, which are the alleged trespasses complained of.

Trespass to the Plaintiff's Wall.

1. The plaintiff is the occupier of certain land situate at M., in the parish of M., in the county of C., and of a wall standing

Defence of

an easement by lost grant

to claim

for tres

pass.

Claim for trespass to

a wall.

Claim for

on the said lands and separating the plaintiff's said lands from trespass to certain lands adjoining, of which the defendant is the owner.

a wall.

Trespass

to the

yard.

2. On the 5th day of January, 1877, the defendant broke and destroyed a portion of the said wall, whereby the plaintiff has been kept out of the possession and enjoyment of the said wall.

The plaintiff claims:

(1.) £50 damages.

(2.) An injunction to restrain the defendant from the repetition of the act complained of.

(3.) Such further relief, &c.

Trespass to the Plaintiff's Yard.

1. The plaintiff was, at the date of the acts hereinafter complaintiff's plained of, and still is, the owner and occupier of a certain yard situate at the back of the G. Inn, at B., in the county of C. The defendant is the occupier of a house abutting on the said yard, one of the doors of which house opens into the said yard.

imme

2. The defendant has wrongfully placed a stone step in the plaintiff's said yard, in front of his said house, and has continued to keep the said stone step there till the present time.

3. The defendant also placed and fixed a scraper in the said yard, and has continued to keep the scraper so placed there till the present time.

4. The defendant also fixed a drain-pipe in the wall of his said house, which projects over the said yard, and from which water and refuse are discharged into the said yard.

5. By means of the premises the plaintiff's yard is injured, and the use of the said yard and the way over it obstructed. The plaintiff claims:

:

(1.) £100 damages for the wrongs complained of.

(2.) An injunction (mandatory or otherwise) ordering the defendant, his servant and agents, to desist from committing the said nuisances, or others of a like nature, and commanding them to remove the said

stone step, pipe, and scraper.

(3.) Such further relief as the nature of the case may require.

Defence of Defence of Immemorial User to an Action for Trespass to Land. At the time of the alleged trespass the defendant was seised in fee of certain lands situate at M., in the parish of in

morial user.

of imme

morial

user to

claim for

trespass.

the county of F., and he and all those whose estate he then had Defence therein, from time whereof the memory of man runs not to the contrary, enjoyed a way on foot and with cattle and with carriages [state the nature of the right of way according to the facts] from a public highway over the said land of the plaintiff to the said land of the defendant, and from the said land of the defendant over the said land of the plaintiff to the said public highway at all times of the year, for the more convenient occupation of the said land of the defendant, as to the said land appertaining, and the alleged trespass was a user by the defendant of the said way.

Trover (a).

Action by Trustee in Bankruptcy for Conversion of Horses.

1. The defendant is a horse-breaker and livery-stable keeper Claim for carrying on his business at K., in the county of W.

(a) This action lies for damages for the conversion, as it is called, of the plaintiff's goods, and in order to maintain it the plaintiff must show: 1st. That he had a general or special property in the goods and an actual or constructive possession or right of possession. 2nd. A wrongful conversion by the defendant; and 3rd. Damages, being the value of the goods.

Property and possession.]—Where there is a general and special owner, but the general owner has not transferred his right to the possession, he may maintain the action, as where the latter delivers possession to a carrier, for in these cases the bailee is only the servant of the bailor (Gordon v. Harper, 7 T. R. 12); though the bailee transfers them to another, even although the latter be a bona fide purchaser, unless sold in market overt. (Wilkinson v. King, 2 Camp. 335.) However, the plaintiff must show that he had a right to the immediate possession in order to maintain this action. Thus, if the goods are let for a term unexpired (Gordon v. Harper, supra; and see Cooper v. Willomatt, 1 C. B. 672), or where they are in the possession of a person having a lien on them (Millgate v. Kebble, 3 M. & Gr. 100), the general owner cannot maintain the action. In these cases the bailee would be the proper person to sue, unless he has done something which determines the bailment, in which case the right to the immediate possession by the bailor or general owner arises, and the latter then becomes the proper person to sue for a conversion. (Bryant v. Wardell, 2 Ex. 479; Fenn v. Bittleson, 7 Ex. 152.)

In the case of bailments which do not exclude the bailor from the right of immediate possession, such as a gratuitous loan or deposit, either the bailor or bailee may maintain the action. (Nichols v. Bastard, 2 C. M. & R. 659; Turner v. Hardcastle, 31 L. J. C. P. 193.)

A bailee or other person having a special property may, under some

conversion of horses.

When trover lies.

As to property and possession as essentials in action.