Odger's English Common Law

414 PRIVATE RIGHTS OF ACTION.
or tort, nominal damages at all event s will be recoverable. And this, although
staying the actions in all probability saved the lady trouble and expense.
There is another important class of cases in which it is
material to the preservation of a right that it should not
be infringed with impunity, even in the absence of actual
damage. Thus, an action will lie for an entry on the land
of another, though no appreciable damage be occasioned
thereby. The main reason for this is that repeated acts
of such trespass might eventually be relied upon as evidence
of a right to do so, and thus the plaintiff's title to the
absolute enjoyment of his land might be prejudiced.
Indeed, it may be stated as a general proposition that
" wherever one man does a wrongful act which, if repeated,
would operate in derogation of the rights of another, he is
liable to an action, without particular damage, at the suit of
the person whose right may be affected." x
In such cases the
plaintiff is entitled to at least nominal damages in vindication
of his right.
Thus, the owners of a canal can sue any person who draws water from
the canal and uses it for purposes not authorised by statute, although they
have sustained no appreciable damage thereby ;
for the repetition of such an
act might be made, in- time, the foundation of a claim to a right to do it. 2
In a subsequent case, however, where the plaintiff was the owner in fee
of a cottage and the defendant of some land immediately adjoining it, the
defendant erected on the plaintiff's land a hoarding on poles in order
to block out the access of light to a window in the cottage. At the trial
of the action it appeared that the cottage was in the occupation of a
weekly tenant of the plaintiff who was not a party to the action. The
Court of Appeal held that the plaintiff co.uld not maintain an action of
trespass, and that as the erection of the poles on the plaintiff's land was
too trifling an injury to affect the reversion he was not entitled to an
injunction. 8
In another case the plaintiffs in common with other inhabitants of a
particular district enjoyed a customary right at all times to have water
from a spout situate in a highway within the district for domestic purposes.
The defendant, a riparian owner on the stream which supplied the spout
with water, on various occasions prevented large quantities of water from
reaching the spout, and thus rendered what remained insufficient for the
inhabitants entitled to use it. It was held that an action lay against the
i Per Kelly, C. B., in. Harrop v. Hirst (1868), L. R. 4 Ex. at p. 47.
2 The Bocitdale Canal Co. v. King (1849), 14 Q. B. 122, 136 ; and see Singh v.
Patluk (1878), 4 App. Oas. 121.
8 Cooper v. Crabtree (1882), 20 Ch. D. 583.