96 PRESCRIPTIVE EIGHT TO LIGHT FOR WINDOWS. 



■windmill, for the pi-csumption of a grant only arises in cases where the 

 owner of the servient tenement had it in his power to prevent the enjoy- 

 ment, and did not ; and it is not practically in the power of an owner 

 of neitjhbouring land to preclude the passage of air to a windmill. And 

 })er Wiiihlman J. : " We think, in accordance with the judgment of the 

 Common Pleas and Chascmore v. Richards (7 H. L. Cas., 349, and 29 

 L. J., N.S., Ex., 81) [see Law of the Farm, pp. 176, 177], that the 

 presumption of a grant from long-continued enjoyment, only arises 

 where the person against whom the right is claimed might have inter- 

 rupted or prevented the exercise of the subject of the jn-oposed (jrant. As 

 was observed by Lord Wenslej/dale, it was going very far to say a man 

 must go to the expense of putting up a screen to window-lights to 

 prevent a light being gained by 20 years' enjoyment " {Webb v. Bird). 

 The ruling of the Court of Common Pleas was affirmed in the Exchequer 

 Chamber (31 L. J. C. P. 335, Ex. Ch.). 



Prescriptive right to light for ivindows. — A and B occupied adjoining 

 houses, as tenants to the same landlord, under long leases, which were 

 made on the same day, and to expire at the same time. B, by building 

 on his own premises, obstructed the access of light to a window in A's 

 house, through which the light had passed without interruption for 

 more than 20 years ; and it was held by the Court of Exchequer 

 Chamber that A, by the 20 years' user, liad acquired a right to the 

 light, and might maintain an action against B for obstructing it, though 

 they occupied these premises as tenants and under the same landlord ; 

 and the observations of Coleridge J. and Cresswell J., speaking of the 

 3rd section of the Prescription Act in Truscott v. Merchant Taglors' 

 Compang (11 Ex., 8G3; and 21 L. J., N.S., Ex., 173), were cited in 

 support of their views. The former learned judge observed : " The 

 third section seems to simplify and almost new found the mode of acquir- 

 ing the right to access of light. It founds it on actual enjoyment for 

 the full period of 20 years without interruption, unless that enjoyment 

 is sliown to have been hy consent or agreement expressly made by deed 

 or writing, thus putting the right on a simple foundation, and with the 

 simplest exception" {Frewen v. FhiUips, 30 L. J. C. P. 35G). 



Ancient windows restored after improper enlargemoit to their original 

 size resume tlieir original easenumt. If ancient windows which look over 

 the land or upon the premises of another are enlarged, and are com- 

 plained of, the Court, upon their being restored to their original dimen- 

 sions, will restrain the owner of the adjoining property from obscuring 

 such restored windows ; and if an owner of land complains of an ease- 

 ment usurped over his property, and delays his application for relief, a 

 court of equity will not interfere until he has established his right at 



