DAMAGES FOR TRESPASS. 359 



Estimating damnges for frcymss or ju'gligrnf act. — In an action fur a 

 wrong, whether arising out of trespass or a negligent act, the jury in 

 estimating the daniages may take into considei-ation all tlie circumstances 

 attending the committal of the wrong. In an action for wrongfully and 

 injuriously palling down a building adjoining the plaintiff's stable in a 

 negligent and improper manner, and with such a want of proper care, 

 that by reason thereof a piece of timber fell upon the plaintiff's stable 

 and destroyed the roof, and by reason of the defendant's negligence, 

 carelessness, and unskilfulness, part of the building fell upon and 

 injured the plaintiff's horse, and evidence was given showing that the 

 defendant had acted wilfully and with the object of forcing the plaintiff 

 to give up possession of the stable, it was held by the Court of Exche- 

 quer that the jury were properly directed, that if they thought the 

 defendant had acted with a high hand wilfully, and with the object of 

 getting the plaintiff out of possession, the damages might be higher 

 than if the injury was the result of pure negligence. And per Bramwell 

 B., " Suppose a man was to put an offensive mixen on his own lands, 

 opposite his neighbour's window, so as to be a nuisance, and for the 

 mere purpose of annoyance, do you conceive that the damage could 

 be limited to a mere pecuniary compensation in such a case as that 

 it may be said the act is wilful as it is here ? " And per Clumnd B,, 

 "My brother Bramwell has observed that in an action of trespass, 

 that is in some action of tort, you may give evidence of damage beyond 

 the actual injury sustained, in consequence of insulting circumstances 

 connected with the trespass ; and I can see no reason why that should 

 be limited to one kind of action of tort, by trespass, and should not 

 extend to an action which, in substance, is for negligence committed 

 under circumstances which might have supported an action of trespass " 

 {Emhlen v. Mgers). 



Entry unlaivfal on day ivhen pUiintiff has ivholc of day to remove 

 crops. — In trespass for entering land and breaking gates (the interest of 

 the plaintiff under a contract for growing crops expiring on the day of 

 which the entry was made by the defendant, who was entitled to the 

 property), it was held by Wightman J. that as the plaintiff was entitled 

 to the whole of the day to remove his crops, the entry was unlawful, but 

 the damages must be nominal, and an amendment to include the crops 

 in the declaration was refused {Archer v. Sadler). 



In an action against a railway company for rarefe^s/?// letting sparks 

 fly from their engines, so as to set the herbage, &c., on fire, Watson B. 

 ruled that it is not necessary to prove any specific negligence, and that 

 the compensation in sujh a case should be measured, as in that of an 

 unwilling vendor {Gibson v. South Eastern Railway Company). 



