for a neighbouring farmer. Subsequently, a notice was served on him to deliver possession of the cottage. Thereupon, possession was taken from-him. He filed then the suit to recover damages for forcible entry and for assault on the basis of the alleged infringement by the defendants of the statute 5 Ric. 2, stat. 1, c. 7, which enacts that a forcible entry is a punishable offence. The learned trial judge granted the relief prayed for by the plaintiff and the Court of Appeal, as stated above, differed from the view taken by him. The Court of Appeal noticed the distinction between the case of a person who occupies a premises by virtue of employment is servant and the case of a person who Occupies as atenant. The plaintiff therein relied upon the case in Newton us. Harland, 1 M & G page 644 for the proposition that nobody can take possession without any recourse to court of law and any forcible entry is a crime in law. The learned Judge Justice Erskine said in that case "There are, it is true, many cases (some of which were cited at the argument) in which it has been held that no action for trespass quare clausurn freight will lie at the suit of a tenant against the landlord for a forcible entry after the expiration of the term. The earlier authorities upon .this point are collected in kDalton's Justice, c. 129, p. 431; and Turner v. Meymott. (5) But then the reason for this is also given, namely, that the plaintiff, having no title to the possession as against his landlord, can have no right of action against him as a trespasser, for entering upon his own land, even with force; for entering upon his own land, even with force; for, although the law had been violated by the defendant, for which he was liable to be punished under a criminal prosecution, no right of the plaintiff had been infringed, and no injury had been sustained by him for which he could be entitled to compensation in damages;" and by Fry J. in Beddall v. Maitland (6), where he says: "He can recover no damages for the entry, because the possession was not legally his, and he can recover none for the force used in the entry, because, though the statute of Richard II. crates a crime, it gives not civil remedy." The Court of Appeal dealt with this case at length and found that this case was not accepted by any Court subsequently and that was no longer good law. After having considered this case, the learned Judges came to the conclusion "In the present case the defendants were undoubtedly entitled to possession of the cottage. The plaintiffs had no right and did not pretend they had any right to remain there. Assuming, but without deciding, that the entry by the defendants was a forcible entry, the right to possession was in the defendants, and the acts which are alleged as giving the plaintiffs a right of action were done in defense of their right to possession. Blades v. Higgs (2); and of the possession which they had acquired by the alleged forcible entry. I have no fear that the present decision will encourage lawlessness as was suggested for the respondent. A person who makes a forcible entry upon
