Fisheries in tidal waters.

(c) Bland v. Lipscombe, (1854) 3 C. L. R. 261; 3 W. R. 57.

(d) Webber v. Lee, (1882) 9 Q. B. D. 315; 51 L. J. Q. B. 485.

(e) See Wickham v. Hawker, and Ewart v. Graham, sup. (f) Webber v. Lee, sup.

(g) Hale. De jure maris, c. 4; Malcolmson v. O'dea, (1862) 10 H. E. C. 593; 9 Jur. N. S. 1135; Bristow v. Cormican, (1878) 3 A. C. 641.

(h) Mayor of Carlisle v. Graham, (1869) L. R. 4 Ex. 361; 38 L. J. Ex. 226; and see Fitzhardinge v. Purcell, 1908, 2 Ch. 139.

(i) 9 Hen. 3, c. 16.

(k) Hale, c. 5; Co. 2 Inst. 30; Malcolmson v. O'dea, (1862) 10 H. L. C. 593. 618; Holford v. George, (1868) L. R. 3 Q. B. 639; 37 L. J. Q. B. 185; Edgar v. Commrs. of Fisheries, (1871) 23 L. T. 732; Neill v. Duke of Devonshire, (1882) 8 A. C. 135; 31 W. R. 622; Johnston v. O'neill, 1911, A. C. 552, a case of a navigable non-tidal lake. If a several right of fishery which existed before Magna Charta revert to the Crown, it may even now be granted by the Crown; 8 A. C. 180; Duke of Northumberland v. Houghton, (1870) L. R. 5 Ex. 127; 39 L. J. Ex. 66; Tighe v. Sinnott, (1897) 1 Ir. R. 140.

The grant of "weirs "creates not only a separate fishery, but also passes the soil of the river over which there is a right to construct weirs (p). And a grant of a several fishery by the owner of the soil will pass the soil also, in the absence of evidence of a contrary intention (q). By a grant of a free fishery no right in the soil will pass to the grantee; nor will the grantor be excluded from the right to fish (r). The grant of a "fishery," eo nomine, will apparently pass the largest right the grantor has to give (s). So, too, a reservation of right and privilege of fishing, where the grantor is at the date of the grant possessed of a sole fishery, will reserve to the grantor an exclusive right of fishery (t).

Grants of fisheries; their operation.

In inland lakes and pools of which the soil is vested in one common owner, the right of fishery is also his exclusively. And it seems to be now settled that large inland lakes are on the same footing as small ones, and that to both the rule of ownership ad medium filum applies (u).

Fishery in inland lakes.

(l) Hudson v. Mcrea, (1863) 4 B. & S. 585; 33 L. J. M. C. 65.

(m) Hargreaves v. Diddams, (1875) L. It. 10 Q. B. at p. 585; 44 L. J. M. C. 178; Mussett v. Burch, (1876) 35 L. T. 486; Pearce v. Scotcher, (1882) 9 Q. B. D. 162; 46 L. T. 342; Smith v. Andrews, 1891, 2 Ch. 678; 65 L. T. 175.

(n) Smith v. Andrews, sup.; Johnston v. O'neill, 1911, A. C. p. 578; and see Lord Fitzhardinge v. Purcell, 1908, 2 Ch. 139; Coulson and Forbes, 4th ed. p. 78.

(o) Smith v. Andrews, sup.

(p) Hanbury v. Jenkins, 1901, 2 Ch. 401; 70 L. J. Ch. 730.

(q) A.-g. v. Emmerson, 1891, A. C. 649; 65 L. T. 564; Hanbury v. Jenkins, 1901, 2 Ch. 401, 411; 70 L. J. Ch. 730; and cases there cited.

(r) Bloomfield v. Johnston, (1868) 8 I. R. C. L. 68.

(s) Aldermen of London v. Hasting, (1657) 2 Sid. 8. The use of the word "several" is not necessary to create a several fishery; Hambury v. Jenkins, sup.

(t) Lord Paget v. Milles, (1781) 3 Doug. 43.

(u) Johnston v. O'neill, 1911, A. C. 552, 578; Coulson and Forbes, 4th ed. p. 100.

A right to dig coal or other minerals on another man's land is a right to a profit a prendre, and, if reasonable and certain, may be claimed by prescription (x); though not in general by custom (y); but a claim to dig and carry away the soil from another's land, without stint or limit, is unreasonable, and cannot be established by prescription or custom (z).

Right to dig coal, etc.

The right to the sole and several herbage and pasturage of land or other profit a prendre in gross is not within the Prescription Act (a); but the right to take, along with others, any of the produce of land, e.g., grass, turves, or trees - or of the soil itself, e.g., sand, clay, or stones - is a right of profit a prendre, which within reasonable limits may be claimed by prescription (b). The right to enter and draw water from a natural spring is, however, an easement, and not a profit a prendre; running water being no part of the soil, nor the produce of the soil (c). There is no Common Law right in the public to enter on the seashore for the purpose of gathering sea-weed (d); and though sea-weed lying ungathered on the shore is not the subject of larceny (e), yet an action for trover by the owner of the foreshore will lie for it (f).

Right of sole pasturage or other profits a prendre in gross; of drawing water; of gathering sea-weed.

(x) Paddock v. Forrester, (1842) 3 Man. & G. 903; 11 L. J. C. P. 107; Wilkinson v. Proud, (1843) 11 M. & W. 33; 12 L. J. Ex. 227.

(y) A.-g. v. Mathias, (1858) 4 K. & J. 579, 591; 27 L. J. Ch. 761.

(z) Clayton v. Corby, (1343) 5 Q. B. 415; 14 L. J. Q. B. 364; A.-g. v. Mathias, (1858) 4 K. & J. 579; 27 L. J. Ch. 761. As to stone being a "mineral," see Darvill v. Roper, (1855) 3 Dr. 294; 24 L. J. Ch. 779; and Bell v. Wilson, (1866) 1 Ch. 303; (1865) 2 Dr. & S. 395; and see G. W. It. Co. v. Carpalla, etc. Co., 1909, 1 Ch. 218; 1910, A. C. 83.

(a) Sec Welcome v. Upton, (1839) 5 M. & W. 398, 403; (1840) 6 M. & W. 536, 542; Shuttleworth v. Le Fleming, (1865) 19 C. B. N. S. 687; 34 L. J. C. P. 309; Gale, 10th ed. 207, n. (I).

(b) See Goodman v. Saltash Corpn., (1882) 7 A. C. 633; 52 L. J. Q. B. 193; Tilbury v. Silva, (1890) 45 Ch. D. 98, 107; 63 L. T. 141. Cf. Lord Chesterfield v. Harris, 1908, 2 Oh. 397; 1911, A. C. 623.

(c) Race v. Ward, (1855) 4 E. & B. 702; 24 L. J. Q. B. 153; and see Dungarvan v. Mansfield, (1897) 1 Ir. R. 420; Macnnghten v. Baird, (1903) 2 Ir. R. 731; and see Verge v. Somerville, 1924, A. C. 496.

(d) Howe v. Stowell, (1833) Alc. & Nap. 348; Baird v. Fortune, (1861) 4 Macq. 127; 5 L. T. 2; Healy v. Thome, (1870) I. R. 4 C. L. 495; Hamilton v. A.-g., (1880) 5 L. R. Ir. 555; and see Blundell v. Catterall, (1821) 5 B. & Ald. 268.