356 MEASURE OF DAMAGES FOR REMOVING SOIL. 



to jiass, so as to obstruct the road and make it dangerous to persons 

 using- it, and gave no notice by signal or otherwise. It was held by the 

 Court of Common Pleas that the defendant was liable to an action by 

 the plaintiff for the injury sustained by his horse, and senible it was not 

 necessary to aver in the declaration that the materials were so placed 

 by the defendant without the permission of the owners and occupiers of 

 the soil, as such allegation would raise an immaterial issue. And ^jer 

 Wi/ks J. : "A statement of the facts was sufficient to show that the 

 ]>laintiff had a remedy, because the defendant had no right to set a trap 

 for the plaintiff. A person coming on lands by licence has a right to 

 suppose that the person who gives the licence, and much more a person 

 wlio is a wrong-doer, will not do anything which will cause him an 

 injury. In this case I do not think that tlie defendant has shown a 

 licence to place the materials in the way he did." And per Williams J. : 

 " Suppose you have a piece of land, and give your neighbour leave to j)ut 

 his harrows upon it, and just before dusk he puts them the wrong way 

 ■upwards, and your friend conies to dine with you, and is damaged 

 thereby, will he not have a right of action against that man ? " On the 

 counsel objecting tliat according to Southcote v. Stanley he had not, his 

 Lordship observed, " The exception is the case of Southcote v. Stanley, 

 and that case stands entirely on the relation of host and guest, and is 

 founded on the proposition that a man who becomes a guest cannot 

 complain of the want of good appointments in the house in which he is 

 a guest." 



In trespass for cutting into the plaintiff's close, and carrying away 

 the soil, the proper measure of damages is the value to the plaintiff of the 

 land removed, not the expense of restoring it to its original condition 

 {Jones V. Gooday). To a plea of the Statute of Limitations in an action 

 of trespass, or trespass on the case, the plaintiff will not be allowed to 

 reply as an equitable answer under sec. 85 of the Common Law Pro- 

 cedure Act, 1854, that the trespasses, &c., were under-ground, and had 

 been fraudulently concealed from the plaintiff till within six years before 

 suit {Hunter v. Gibbons). 



With respect to giving acts of ownership in evidence in an action of 

 trespass, Parke B. observed in Jones v. Williams, " In ordinary cases to 

 prove his title to a close, the claimant may give in evidence any acts of 

 ownership in any part of the same inclosure ; for the ownership of one 

 part causes a reasonable inference that the other belongs to the same 

 person ; though it Ijy no means follows as a necessary consequence, for 

 different persons may have balks of land in the same inclosure ; but 

 this is a fact to be submitted to the jniy. So I apprehend the same 

 rule is a[.plicablc to a wood, which is nut inclosed by any fence ; if you 



