THE AMATEUR AND HORTICULTURAL LAW. 



25 



Ancient Lights. 



Perhaps the question of ancient lights is one which affects the amateur 

 horticulturist as much, or even more, than his professional brother, 

 because usually the amateur conducts his operations in a much more 

 confined space. The general rule of law is that where a person has 

 enjoyed the right of light to his buildings for twenty years he is entitled 

 to restrain his neighbour from interfering with this light, but it must 

 be borne in mind that this right of ancient light applies only to the light 

 coming to the windows of a house and does not apply to light which 

 merely filters into a garden. 



Eecently I saw it suggested in an agricultural paper that a person 

 might have the right to restrain his neighbour from shutting off the 

 sunlight from his garden, on the ground that this would constitute a 

 nuisance, but I confess I should be very reluctant to advise anyone to 

 institute litigation with this object at the present day. During the last 

 few months the Law Lords have considerably restricted even the right 

 of windows in a building to the enjoyment of ancient lights. In a recent 

 case the Courts have held that it is no longer sufficient to show that the 

 light to one's windows has been interfered with by a neighbour. If one 

 seeks for the protection of an injunction one must go still further and 

 prove that the interference with the light is of such a serious nature as to 

 diminish the rental value of the building. This does not mean merely 

 the value to the person who is in occupation at the moment (who would 

 naturally miss the slightest amount of light of which he might be 

 deprived), because the next tenant might notice nothing particularly 

 wrong, not being aware of the additional advantage enjoyed by his 

 predecessor, and in that case the rental value might not be diminished. 



Overhanging Trees. 



The subject of interference by neighbours leads us up to consideration 

 of the remedies available when trees overhang a boundary wall. 



If the trees are of such a poisonous nature as to injure a neighbour's 

 horses or cattle which may be likely to feed upon them (in the case of 

 yew trees &c), an injunction can be obtained against the person on 

 whose land the trees stand, compelling him to cut the trees back to his 

 own boundary, even if the trees have overhung for more than twenty 

 years. Again, the Courts recently granted an injunction against a land- 

 owner who allowed his elm and ash trees to overhang a boundary fence in 

 such a way as to interfere with the growth of his neighbour's crops. 

 The Court held that the neighbour was entitled to protection, and 

 compelled the owner of the trees to cut back the overhanging branches. 

 It will be noticed that in this last case the Court interfered expressly 

 because the overhanging trees caused actual damage to the person owning 

 the land on the opposite side of the boundary fence. The Court would 

 not have been so willing to interfere if the trees caused no damage, or 

 were unsightly, or because some capricious objection was taken to the 

 overhanging. Even in cases where no damage results there is, however, 

 a legal remedy, because if your neighbour's trees overhang your land you 



