Odger's English Common Law

FORCIBLE ENTRY. 451
justify such assault and damage ? On the one hand may be cited the dicta
of Parke, B., in Harvey v. Bridges, 1 apparently approved by Lord Selborne
in Lows v. Telford? and on the other the judgment of Fry, J., in Beddall
v. Maifland, 3 supporting the opinion of the majority of the Court of Common
Pleas in Neivtoii v. Harlaud* The fact that the former occupier cannot
obtain damages for the forcible entry is by no means conclusive on the
question 6
: because the rightful owner cannot allege that his subsequent
acts were lawful, unless they were justified by a lawful entry.
The entry need not be by the defendant in person. If a
servant enters on the plaintiff's land at his master's bidding,
the master is as liable in every way for such trespass as he
would have been if he had gone himself. Again, a man
is also answerable for any trespass committed by his horses,
cattle or other tame animals. For if they escape from his
premises and stray upon the land of another—much more if
he permits or drives them on— and they there tread down
his neighbour's herbage, and spoil his corn or his trees, or
attack and injure his cattle, this is a trespass for which
damages can be recovered. 7 The law gives the occupier of
land a double remedy in this case by permitting him either
to sue for the trespass or to distrain the cattle thus doing
damage 8
till the owner shall compensate him therefor.
When cattle are thus distrained, no property or even posses-
sion passes to the distrainor; they are merely seized and
detained in a pound as a pledge for payment, and are said to
be in the custody of the law. The method by which the
owner recovers back his cattle is explained in the next
chapter under the title " Eeplevin." 9
There are many different defences to an action of trespass
to land. The defendant may of course dispute the plaintiff's
possession or deny any entry by himself. Or he may
1 (1845), 14 M. & W. at p. 442.
2 (1876), 1 App. Cas. at p. 426.
8 (1881), 17 Oh. D. at p. 187.
< (1840), 1 M. & Gr. 644.
« See Pollock, Law of Toits, 8th ed., p. 386.
6 It will of course be otherwise if the servant's act was in contravention of the
master's orders (Joseph Hand, Ltd. v. Craig, [1919] 1 Ch. 1).
7 Ellis v. Loftus Iron Co. (1874), L. R. 10 C. P. 10 ; Cooker v. Willeoclts, [1911]
2 K. B. 124 ; Holgate v. Bleazard, [1917] 1 K. B. 443 ; Wellaway v. Courtier, [1918]
Tlieyer v. Purnell, [1918] 2 K. B. 333.
8 Such cattle were called by the old lawyers " cattle damage feasant." See post,
1 K. B. 200 ;
p. 967.
a Post, 462.
29—2