Odger's English Common Law

—
446 TRESPASS TO LAND.
proceedings. He may, if he thinks fit, take the law into his
own hands and eject the trespasser, provided he uses no more
force than is necessary for the purpose. But if he acquiesces
in the trespasser settling down on any portion of the land
and assuming physical control over it, he cannot subsequently
himself eject him from that portion.
To succeed in an action of trespass to land the plaintiff
must prove
(i.) that he was in possession of land situate in England or
"Wales
;
]
and
(ii.) that the defendant entered on that land without his
consent.
No evidence of any special damage is necessary, but if in
the particular case there be any, such evidence may be given
to increase the amount of the verdict. Proof of the trespass
without proof of any consequential damage entitles the plain-
tiff to at least nominal damages ; such damages are given in
order to vindicate the right which has been invaded. And
if there is evidence that the defendant threatens or intends to
repeat his unlawful act, the Court will grant an injunction to
restrain any repetition of it. 2 But an injunction will not be
granted in cases in which there has been merely a technical
trespass which has caused no damage. 3
Any invasion of the plaintiff's right of property is prima
facie wrongful. But if the defendant can show that his act
was neither wilful nor the result of negligence, his act is not
wrongful and no action is maintainable. 4
(i.) The action for trespass to land is founded upon posses-
sion ; hence no one can bring this action unless he was in
possession of the land at the time of the defendant's trespass,
or, at least, had the right to be in possession and had actually
entered into possession before bringing his action.
1 No action will lie in our Courts for a trespass to land situate abroad (British
S. A. Co. v. Companhia de Mocamtique, [1893] A. C. 602).
2 An injunction is a peremptory order of the Court forbidding any continuance
ox repetition by the defendant, his servants or agents, of the wrong of which
the plaintiff complains. See Injunction, vust, p. 11 '>«,
3 Llandudno U. D. C. v. Woods, [1893] 2 Ch. 706 ; Behrens v. Richards 0906)
* '
93 L. T. 623.
* See the judgment of Bramwell, B., in Holmes v. Mather (1875), L*. E 10 Ex
at p. 267.