02.04.2013 Views

Odger's English Common Law

Odger's English Common Law

Odger's English Common Law

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

THE RIGHT TO LIGHT. 573<br />

for merely omitting to repair the way ; he is not, as a rule,<br />

bound to do anything. It is the duty of the grantee of the<br />

right to repair a way or to clean out a watercourse, and he<br />

has a right to go upon the servient tenement for such a<br />

purpose.<br />

In order to succeed in an action for the obstruction of<br />

ancient lights, it is not enough for the plaintiff to prove that<br />

owing to the obstruction he enjoys less light ; he must show<br />

that the obstruction amounts to a nuisance to him, having<br />

regard to his previously existing easement of light. 1<br />

In other<br />

words, he must prove that it is of such a character as to<br />

render his tenement materially less fit for the purposes of<br />

business, if it be a place of business.<br />

" Any substantial interference with an owner's comfortable use and enjoy-<br />

ment of his house according to the usages of ordinary persons in the locality<br />

is actionable as a nuisance at common law. ... It is still, as it has always<br />

been, a question of nuisance or no nuisance, but the test of nuisance is not<br />

—How much light has been taken, and is that enough materially to lessen the<br />

enjoyment and use of the house that its owner previously had ? but—How<br />

much is left, and is that enough for the comfortable use and enjoyment of<br />

the house according to the ordinary requirements of mankind ?" 2<br />

Defence*.<br />

There are many matters which a defendant may urge in<br />

answer to a prima facie case which the plaintiff has established.<br />

For instance, it is open to him to show if he can that the user<br />

relied on by the plaintiff was forcible, or secret, or by<br />

permission. The Prescription Act makes no change in the<br />

old rule that the enjoyment relied upon must have been nee<br />

vi, nee clam, nee precario. Hence the action will still be<br />

defeated by any evidence which prior to the statute would<br />

have been an answer to the claim—as, for instance, by proof<br />

that the user could not have been as of right, or that the<br />

owner of the servient tenement was during any portion of the<br />

period of prescription incapable of making a grant of a right<br />

such as the plaintiff claims, .

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!