NEW LTGHTS NOT COR RESPONDING WITH OLD. 97 



law to an abatement. If tlie owner of a tenement has windows looking 

 upon the premises of another, he cannot increase their size or number, 

 or claim more extensive rights. Per Sir J. Romillij M.R. {Cooper v. 

 Huhbuclc, 31 L. J. Ch. 123). 



Twenty years' enjoyment of liyht, how calcuMed. — The period of 

 twenty years' enjoyment, which confers a right to the access of light 

 under 2 & 3 Will. IV. c. 71, s. 3, is, by s. 4, the period of twenty years 

 next before any suit or action wherein the claim to the right was brought 

 into question ; and is not limited to the period of twenty years next 

 before the pending suit or action. Per Erie C.J., WUles J. andi>yfes J,; 

 Williams J. diss, {ih., 31 L. J. C. P. 323). 



Ancient riyhts may he altered, provided they are not made more extensive. 

 — In Turner v. Spooner, the plaintiff was the owner of a house abutting 

 upon a back-yard in the occupation of the defendants, and possessed 

 two ancient lights overlooking such yard, which, for the greater acquire- 

 ment of light and air, he modernized by removiny the old casements, and 

 substitutiny new ones of a liyhter construction, but not extending the 

 aperture occupied by their frames. The defendants then proceeded to 

 erect and glaze with opaque glass a framework close to these improved 

 windows; and a bill was filed for an injunction to restrain such pro- 

 ceedings. It was held by Kindcrsley V.C. that a party possessed of 

 ancient lights has a right to acquire an increased access of light and air 

 if he can do so without altering the aperture, and this does not create a 

 new easement ; that the owner of an ancieut light is entitled to use it 

 in any manner he pleases, by obstructing, opening, or protecting it, or 

 by taking away old window-frames and substituting new ones of a much 

 less size and thickness, so that he does not extend the aperture itself, 

 and that the intrusion upon a neighbour's privacy is not a ground for 

 interference, either at law or in equity {ih., 30 L. J. Ch. 801). 



Neio liyhts not corresimndiny ivith old. — The warehouse of the plain- 

 tiffs, which had ancient windows, having been burnt down, was rebuilt 

 by them. In the new warehouse, the windows were placed in different 

 situations and were of different sizes, and altogether occupied more 

 space than the windows of the old building. Some parts of some of the 

 new windows coincided with some parts of the old, but a greater portion 

 of the old and new windows did not coincide. The defendants, who 

 had premises on the other side of the street, raised their own house, and 

 so obstructed the access of light to the new windows. They could not 

 have obstructed the passage of light to such portions of the windows as 

 were new without at the same time obstructing its passage to such 

 portions of the new windows as were on the sites of the old windows. 

 It was held by the Exchequer Chamber, confirming the judgment of the 



H 



