entry, as by breaking open the doors of a house, whether any person be within or not, especially if it be a dwelling-house; and perhaps 'by any act of outrage after the entry, as by carrying away the party's goods.' Ib. s. 26; see 3 Burr. 1702 (n).

But if a person who pretends a title to lands, barely go over them, either with or without a great number of attendants armed or unarmed, in his way to the church or market, or for such like purpose, without doing any act which either expressly or impliedly amounts to a claim to such lands,' this is not an entry within the meaning of the statutes. Hawk. ib. s. 20. The bare drawing up of a latch or pulling back the bolt of a door is not a forcible entry, as being inconsiderable,' according to the better opinion. So coming in peaceably, enticing the owner out of possession and afterwards excluding him by shutting the door without other force.' Ib. s. 26; Bac. Abr. Forcible Entry (B); Com. Dig. Forc. Entr. (A) 3; Russ. Cri. 448.

Incidental offence] 'But for any independent wrong (such as an assault or an injury to furniture) committed in the course of the forcible entry damages can be recovered even by a person whose possession was wrongful, for the statute [5 Rich. 2] makes a possession obtained by force unlawful even when it is so obtained by the rightful owner': per Fry J., Beddall v. Maitland, above. The assault or injury mentioned may be indictable.

2. The force and violence] Compare 1, above. Wherever a man, either by his behaviour or speech, at the time of his entry, gives those who are in possession just cause to fear that he will do them some bodily hurt if they will not give way to him, his entry is esteemed forcible, whether he cause such terror by carrying with him such an unusual number of servants, or by arming himself in such a manner as plainly intimates a design to back his pretensions by force, or by actually threatening to kill, maim, or beat those who shall continue in possession, or by giving out such speeches as plainly imply a purpose of using force against those who shall make any resistance.' Hawk. ib. s. 27. But it seems that no entry is to be judged forcible from any threatening to spoil another's goods, or to destroy his cattle, or to do him any other such like damage, which is not personal.' Ib. s. 28. A single person may commit the offence. Ib. s. 29.

It is not necessary that there should be any one assaulted to constitute a forcible entry; for, if persons take or keep possession of either house or land, with such numbers and show of force as are calculated to deter the rightful owner from sending them away, and resuming his own possession, that is sufficient in point of law to constitute a forcible entry, or detainer: per Abbott C.J., Milner v. Maclean, 2 C. & P. 18, 1825. Especially a dwelling-house, which has a special sanctity: per Ryder C.J., Bathurst, Sayer, 225, 1755; Russ. Cri. 447. Forcible entry is not proved by evidence of a mere trespass, but there must be proof of such force, or at least such show of force as is calculated to prevent any resistance: per L. Tenterden C.J., Smyth, 1832.

Detainer] The same circumstances of violence or terror which will make an entry forcible will make a detainer forcible also;' therefore, whoever keeps in his house an unusual number of people, or unusual weapons, or threatens to do some bodily hurt to the former

possessor if he dare return, shall be adjudged guilty of a forcible detainer, though no attempt is made to re-enter; and it hath been said that he also shall come under the like construction, who places men at a distance from the house, in order to assault any one who shall attempt to make an entry into it... but... barely refusing to go out of a house, and continuing therein in despite of another,' is not a forcible detainer. Hawk. ib. s. 30. So where a lessee at the end of his term, keeps arms in his house to prevent the entry of the lessor, or a lessee at will retains possession with force, after the determination of the will: these are forcible detainers. Com. Dig. Forc. Entry (B. 1).

The st. 15 R. 2 only gave a remedy in cases of forcible detainer where there had been a previous forcible entry; but the st. 8 H. 6, 9, gives a remedy for forcible detainer even after a peaceable entry, if unlawful. Oakley, 4 B. & Ad. 307, 1832. But it does not hence follow that the 8 H. 6 does not apply to the case of a tenant at will, or for years, holding over after the will is determined, or the term expired; because the continuance in possession afterwards may amount, in judgment of law, to a new entry: per Parke J., ib., citing Hawk. above, s. 34. But if he merely refuses to go out of a house and continues therein in despite of another,' it is not this offence. Hawk. s. 30.

A conviction for a forcible detainer is bad, if it only states that the prosecutor complained to the justices of an entry and unlawful expulsion and forcible detainer, and that they personally came and found the defendant forcibly detaining the premises, whereupon they convict him, &c. For the justices cannot know by their view without evidence that the detainer was unlawful, or that there had been an unlawful entry. Semble, that the conviction ought to show that the defendant was summoned, or had otherwise an opportunity to defend himself. Held, also, that the court was bound to award a re-restitution, as a consequence of quashing the conviction without enquiring into the legal or equitable claims of the respective parties. Jones, 1 Str. 474, 1722; Wilson, 3 A. & E. 817, 1835; Attwood v. Joliffe, 3 New Sess. Cas. 116, 1848; although the conviction be quashed for a merely technical error and the lease of the dispossessed person has expired during the litigation': Russ. Cri. 454. Of course, the offence may

become a riot.

6

3. The possession] 'It hath been holden for a general rule, that one may be indicted for a forcible entry into any such incorporeal hereditaments, for which a writ of entry will lie either by the common law, as for rent, or by statute, as for tythes, &c.; but I do not find any good authority that such an indictment will lie for a common or office.' So no 'violence 'offered to another in respect of a way or such like easement which is no possession,' will make a forcible entry. Hawk. ib. s. 31. Nor can a person be convicted under 15 R. 2 of a detainer of any tenements into which he had not made a precedent forcible entry. Ib. There may be forcible entry into ecclesiastical possessions, as churches, vicarage houses, &c.: Russ. Cri. 446.

There seems now to be no doubt that a person may be guilty of a forcible entry, by violently and with force entering into that to which he has a legal title. Newton v. Harland, 1 M. & G. 644, 1840. See also Studd, 1866. In Newton v. Harland the judges thought that a landlord might be guilty of a forcible entry after the expiration of his tenant's term both at common law and under the statutes; and doubted

whether possession so obtained was legal. See Davison v. Wilson, 11 Q. B. 890, 1848; Burling v. Read, ib. 904, 1850, per Fry J. in Beddall v. Maitland, above. But see Addenda.

A joint tenant or tenant in common, may offend either by forcibly ejecting or forcibly holding out his companion; for though the entry of such a tenant be lawful per my et per tout, so that he cannot in any case be punished for it in an action of trespass, yet the lawfulness of his entry no way excuses the violence. Hawk. ib. s. 33.

Indictment] The indictment must show what estate the expelled person had, for the statute on which it is founded (8 H. 6, 9; 21 J. 1, 15, &c.) varies therewith. Wannop, Sayer 142, 1754. In forcible entry on the possession of a lessee for years, it is sufficient to prove that such lessee was possessed, although the indictment allege that the premises were his freehold. Lloyd, Cald. 415, 1784. Proof that the prosecutor holds colourably, as a freeholder or leaseholder, will suffice; the court will not on the trial, enter into the validity of an adverse claim... made by the defendant which he ought to assert not by force but by action. Williams, 1828-9, Talf. Dick. Sess., 5th ed. (1841), 377: which see further below.

4. The defendant] This offence may be committed by one person as well as by several. Hawk. ib. s. 29. All who accompany a man when he makes a forcible entry will be adjudged to enter with him, whether they actually come on the lands or not. Ib. s. 22. So also with those who, having an estate in land by a defeasible title, continue with force in possession, after a claim made by one who has a right of entry. Ib. s. 23. But where several come in company with one who has a right to enter, and one of the company makes a forcible entry, that is not a forcible entry in the others. 3 Bac. Abr. Forcible Entry (B). And a person who barely agrees to a forcible entry. made to his use, without his knowledge or privity,' is not within the statutes, because he no way concurred in or promoted the force.' Hawk. ib. s. 24.

An infant or feme covert may be guilty of a forcible entry, for actual violence done by them in person; but not for violence done by others at their command, for such command is void. A feme covert, it is said, may be imprisoned for such offence, though not an infant, because he shall not be subject to corporal punishment by force of the general words of any statute where he is not expressly named.' Ib. s. 35. A feme covert may be guilty of a forcible entry into her husband's house, Smyth, 1832, if there is violence amounting to a breach of the peace: per Tenterden C.J.

Award of restitution] The court in which the indictment is found,. or the K. B. on the removal thither of the indictment by certiorari, has power, on conviction, to award restitution. Hawk. ib. ss. 49, 50, 51. Though by the provisoes in the statutes the defendants may set up a possession of three years to stay the award of restitution. Ib. s. 53. A supersedeas of the award of restitution may be granted, before it is executed, by the same court that made the award. Ib. s. 61. And a re-restitution may be awarded by the King's Bench. Ib. s. 66. See Wilson, 1835, above.

Before conviction it is in the discretion of the judge of assize to award a restitution or not, although a true bill has been found by the grand jury for a forcible entry. For an instance see Hake, 4 M. & R.

483, 1827, in a note to W. Williams, ib. 471, 1829; 9 B. & Cr. 549: K. B., where the award was after conviction (above). Harland, 2 Lew. C. C. 170; 8 Ad. & E. 826; 1 P. & D. 93; Moo. & R. 141; 8 L. J. M. C. 60, 1838, where the facts were the same as in Newton v. Harland, above.

An order of restitution made three years after the inquisition was quashed.' Harris, 3 Salk. 313, 1699; Russ. Cri. 454.

Incorporeal hereditaments] This putting out is alwaies to be understood either of a house (or land) only and not of a rent, common, advowson or of any such other like thing wherein an actuall entry cannot bee made': Lamb. Eirenarcha, I. 4, p. 153 (1609), cited Russ. Cri. 452. Such an indictment for an easement-' passage or way'was quashed. Holmes, 1 Mod. R. 73, 1671.

FORCIBLE DETENTION OF PERSONS.

See False Imprisonment.

Application of Foreign Enlistment Act.

637

FOREIGN ENLISTMENT.

FOREIGN STATE, ARMED INVASION OF.

Dу 33-4 V. 90, Foreign Enlistment A. 1870, 2: This Act shall extend to all the dominions of her Majesty, including the adjacent territorial waters.'

By s. 11: If any person within the limits of her Majesty's dominions, and without the licence of her Majesty, prepares or fits out any naval or military expedition to proceed against the dominions of any friendly state the following consequences shall ensue: (1) Every person engaged in such preparation or fitting out or assisting therein or employed in any capacity in such expedition shall be guilty of an offence against this Act.

An indictment under this s. alleging that 'within the limits of her Majesty's dominions,' certain offences (e.g. preparation of an expedition) were committed, it was held by three judges (trial at bar) to allege sufficiently the A. to have been in operation in that place where (e.g.) the alleged illegal preparation took place, without stating how the A. came into force, and further, that if there be an unlawful preparation of an expedition by some person within those dominions, any British subject who assists in such preparation will be guilty of an offence, although he renders assistance from a place outside them (and apparently if he be employed in such expedition outside them). Jameson, 1896, 2 Q. B. 425; 65 L. J. M. C. 218; 18 Cox C. C. 392; 12 T. L. R. 551; 60 J. P. 662; 75 L. T. 77 (see further under Indictment), where L. Russell C.J. lays it down that statutes primâ facie apply only to the United Kingdom (see below); where, as here, it is applicable to the crown's dominions it applies to all persons therein, including foreigners, and according to its context it may be taken to apply to the Queen's subjects everywhere.'