law of tort

What are the facts of case, your locus standi / concern and purpose to set this question paper ?

Trust Google Guru and search and you can find diamonds if you dig with all details.  If you wanted to learn, focus, and learn completely and posts through open forums are not proper, and google search is the best option for learning.  Once the subject is interesting, purchase a second-hand book or hire such a book from a friend and then go on to acquiring more knowledge.  The main objective of the forum is to guide litigants (Primary) and acquiring knowledge by other members through such guidance (ancillary) and the forum is not dedicated to such study alone.

Originally posted by : Meet Ranchmail
	what is trespass and give an example .

A Imaginary Fake "Time-Pass" apathetic question, designed to fool & mislead Experts on this Forum. 

Keep Smiling .... Hemant Agarwal
VISIT: www.chshelpforum.com

Hello, since you have not presented all facts in your query, I assume you want to know about trespass in the law of torts.

Trespass can be said to be an action exceeding the limit carved by the law. It is an intentionally directed, unreasonable interference with one's property or person. 

Therefore there can be trespass against a person or property. 

Trespass against a person is the causing of apprehension of unreasonable interference with one's person and body as well as a third person and includes use of force causing damage and impairment in the body. 

Assault, battery, and false imprisonment are examples of trespass against person.

Trespass against property can be of movable property like goods or trespass against immovable property like land.

Case law to understand better: In the case of Bird vs. Jones, the claimant was trying to go through the enclosure, but the defendant put two police officers to block the claimant's path and prevent him from entering further into the field. He was told that he could go back but not forward. The claimant later committed an assault of the defendant and was arrested. It was held that there was no wrongful restraint or confinement.

Hope this helps you.