[346]. D. 4. 3. 1. 2.
[347]. Allen v. Flood, (1898) A. C. at p. 123.
[348]. Corporation of Bradford v. Pickles, (1895) A. C. 587 at p. 598.
[349]. Allen v. Flood, (1898) A. C. 92 at p. 152.
[350]. The Roman law as to the rights of adjoining proprietors was different. Harm done animo nocendi, that is to say, with a malicious motive, was actionable. D. 39. 3. 1. 12. The German Civil Code, sect. 226, provides quite generally that the exercise of a right is unlawful when its only motive is to harm another person.
[351]. Art. 50, 5th ed.
[352]. Strafgesetzbuch, sect. 43. Cf. the French Code Pénal, Art. 2.
[353]. Roberts’ Case, Dearsly C. C. 539. Per Parke, B., at p. 551: “An attempt at committing a misdemeanour is not an indictable attempt unless it is an act directly approximating to the commission of an offence, and I think this act is a sufficient approximation. I do not see for what lawful purpose the dies of a foreign coin can be used in England, or for what purpose they could have been procured except to use them for coining.” Per Wightman, J., at p. 551: “It is an act immediately connected with the commission of the offence, and in truth the prisoner could have no other object than to commit the offence.” Per Jervis, C. J., at p. 550: “The prisoner was in possession of machinery necessarily connected with the offence, for the express purpose of committing it, and which was obtained and could be used for no other purpose.”
[354]. Reg. v. Collins, L. & C. 471.
[355]. Reg. v. Ring, 61 L. J. M. C. 116; Reg. v. Brown, 24 Q. B. D. 357.