that can be raised, we are aided in resolving this question by well established rules of statutory construction. “Whatever is newly created by statute draws to itself the same qualities and incidents as if it had existed at the common law. In other words, the statute is to be interpreted after the rules and incidents of the common law.” Adkins v. Commonwealth, 175 Va. 590, 599, 9 S.E.2d 349, 353 (1940) (quoting Chichester v. Vass, 5 Va. (1 Call) 83, 102 (1797)). The common law in this state has long recognized that a person who reasonably apprehends bodily harm by another is privileged to exercise reasonable force to repel the assault. Jackson v. Commonwealth, 96 Va. 107, 113, 30 S.E. 452, 454 (1898); see also Montgomery v. Commonwealth, 99 Va. 833, 835, 37 S.E. 841, 842 (1901) (<HOLDING>). The privilege to use such force is limited by
recognizing no right to damages if landowner retains reasonable access to property after a condemnation recognizing that any witness has the right to refuse to be interviewed if he so desires and is not under or subject to legal process holding that defendant had the right to refuse to answer questions put to him by police officer who had called him recognizing the right of a landowner to order a trespasser away and if he refuse s to go to use proper force to expel him so long as no breach of the peace is committed in the outset holding that where the plaintiffs evidence supported a finding that the defendants had applied force to restrain him the jury must determine not only whether the officers were justified in using force at all but if so whether the degree of force actually used was reasonable