Odger's English Common Law

410 PRIVATE RIGHTS OF ACTION.
thereby injure the reputation of that other. These are called
privileged occasions ; and if on a privileged occasion a man
says no more than he honestly believes to be the truth, no
action will lie against him. 1
Again in cases such as Acton v. Blundell, 2 Chasemore v.
Richards, and Corporation of Bradford v. Pickles, suprd, we
find two great legal principles primd facie in conflict: firstly,
the doctrine that the absolute owner of property may deal with
it as he likes, and secondly, the maxim sic utere tuo ut alienum
non laedas, which appears to restrict the enjoyment of property
to such uses as do not injure a neighbour. The general rule
is " that the owner of one piece of land has a right to use
it in the natural course of user, unless in so doing he inter-
feres with some right created either by law or contract." 8
In the absence of evidence of prescription, there is at common law no
liability imposed on the owner of land to maintain a wall in front of his
land protecting it from the water in a creek communicating with the sea.
He will not, therefore, be liable to the occupier of adjoining land for
damage done to it through non-repair of the sea-wall. 4
Every occupier of a piece of land has & primd facie right "to enjoy that
land free from all invasion of filth or other matter coming from any arti-
ficial structure on land adjoining. He may be bound by prescription or
otherwise to receive such matter ; but the burden of showing that he is so
bound rests on those who seek to impose an easement upon him." 5
*
Yet " the Eeports abound with decisions restraining a man's acts upon
and with his own property, where the necessary or probable consequence of
such acts is to do damage to others." Thus, in Humphries v. Brogden, 6
the surface of the land lying over the defendant's minerals belonged to the
plaintiff ; there was no evidence of title, or of any covenant to regulate or
qualify the rights of enjoyment of the respective occupants. The jury
found that the defendant had worked the mines carefully and without
negligence and according to the custom of the country, but that he had
not left sufficient pillars or supports for the soil above ;
so the only question
was, whether the owner of minerals may remove them without leaving sup-
1 See post, pp. 530—539.
2 (1843) 12 M. & W. 324.
» Per Lord Blackburn in Wilson v. Waddell (1876), 2 App. Cas. at p. 99.
* Hudson v. Tabor (1876), 1 Q. B. D. 225 ; (1877), 2 Q. B. D. 290. See
West Norfolk, #e., Co. v. Archdale (1886), 16 Q. B. D. 754 ; and Musselburgh, Real
Estate Co. v. Provost, %c, of Musselburgh, [1905] A. C. 491.
5 Per cur. in Humphries v. Cousins (1877), 2 C. P. D. at pp. 243, 244. See Hodgkinson
v. Minor (1863), 4 B. & S. at p. 241 ; Snow v. Whitehead (1884), 27 Ch. D. 588.
6 (1850), 12 Q. B. 739, 743, 744, 747 (where the previous authorities are noticed) ;
and see Rowbotham v. Wilson (1860), 8 H. L. Cas. 348 ; Duke of Rueoleuch v.
Wakefield (1870), L. E. 4 H. L. 377, distinguished in Love v. Bell (1884), 9 App.
Cas. 286 ; Smith v. Darby (1872), L. R. 7 Q. B. 716.