16. Bassett v. Harwich, 180 Mass. 585, 62 N. E. 974.

17. Ante, Sec. 519, note 69.

18. Emira Highway Com'rs. v. Osceola Highway Corn's, 74 111. App. 185; Richards v. Bristol County Com'rs, 120 Mass. 401; Neal v. Gilmore, 141 Mich. 519, 104 N. W. 609; Rogers v. Town of Aitkin, 77 Minn. 539, 80 N. W. 702; State v. Auchard, 22 Mont. 14, 55 Pac. 361; Lydick v. State, 61 Neb. 309, 85 N. W. 70; Bryant v. Tamworth, 68 N. H. 483, 39 Atl. 431; Bayard v. Standard Oil Co., 38 Ore. 438, 63 Pac. 614; Village of West Bend v. Mann, 59 Wis. 69, 17 N. W. 972.

19. Jones v. Bright, 140 Ala. 268, 37 So. 79; Lieter v. People, 33 Colo. 493, 81 Pac. 270; City of Chicago v. Wildman, 240 111. 215,, 88 N. E. 559; Southern Indiana R. Co. v. Norman, 165 Ind. 126, 74 N. E. 896; Fairchild v. Stewart, 117 Iowa, 734, 89 N. W. 1075; May v. Blackburn, - Ky. - , 25 S. W. 112; Slater v. Gunn, 170 Mass. 509, 41 L. R. A. 268, 49 N. E. 1017; Wills v. Reed, 86 Miss. 446, 38 So. 793; Quinn v. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co., 253 Mo. 48, 161 S. W. 820; Nelson v. Sneed, 76 Neb. 201, 107 N. W. 255; White v. Wiley, 59 Hun (N. Y.) 618, 13 N. Y. Supp. 205; verse,20 that is, must be "as of right," and it must necessarily be "as of right in the public," if it is by the public and adverse. It is recognized that this requirement of claim of right involves no necessity that each member of the public, in passing over the land, shall state that he claims the right to do so as one of the public,21 and the requirement of claim of right appears ordinarily to be satisfied by acts and circumstances of a character which serve to show that the user is adverse.

- (e) Necessity of notice of user. The public user must be with the knowledge of the owner of the land,22 or the circumstances must be such that he can be charged with notice.23

It has been said that the owner must be chargeable with notice that the user is under claim of right in the public,24 and in at least two states it is laid down that there must be acts on the part of the municipal authorities sufficient to show notice that the user is of that character.25 If, however, the landowner is chargeable with notice of the user in the particular case, he might, it would seem, be charged with notice of the character of the user, except when the circumstances are such that the user is presumed to be permissive, rather than adverse or under claim of right, as when it is of wild and unoccupied land,26 or is upon the line of a private way which is open to the public.27

State v. Fisher, 117 N. C. 733, 23 S. E. 158; Root v. Comm. 98 Pa. 170, .42 Am. Rep. 614; Sharp v. Mynatt, 1 Lea (Tenn.) 375. Occasional decisions to the effect that a user by the public is presumed not to be under claim of right (Merchant v. Markham, 170 Ala. 278, 54 So. 236; Gulf & S. I. R. Co. v. Adkinson, 117 Miss. 118, 77 So. 954) do not appear to harmonize with the decisions (ante, this section, note 14) that such user in the case of enclosed land at least, is presumed to be adverse.

20. See Palmer v. Chicago, 248 111. 201, 93 N. E. 765.

21. Hansen v. Green, 275 111. 221, 113 N. E. 982; Shellhouse v. State, 110 Ind. 509, 11 N. E. 484; State v. Green, 41 Iowa, 693;

Sprow v. Boston & A. R. Co., 163 Mass. 330, 39 N. E. 1024.

22. Falter v. Packard, 219 111. 356, 76 N. E. 495; State v. Green, 41 Iowa, 693; State v. Teeters, 97 Iowa, 458, 66 N. W. 754; Graham v. Hartnett, 10 Neb. 518; Rice v. Pershall, 41 Wash. 73, 82 Pac. 1038.

23. Patton v. State, 50 Ark. 53, 6 S. W. 227; State v. Kansas City, etc. R. Co., 45 Iowa, 139; O'con-nell v. Chicago Terminal Transfer R. Co., 184 111. 308, 56 N. E. 355; Village of Manchester v. Clark-son, 195 Mich. 354, 162 N. W. 115.

24. O'connell v. Chicago Terminal Transfer R. Co., 184 111. 308, 56 N. E. 355; Sprow v. Boston & A. R. Co., 163 Mass. 330, 39 N. E. 1024.

- (f) Continuity of user. The user of the land by the public must be substantially continuous through out the prescriptive period, in order to create a public right,28 and consequently, if the landowner, during such period, erects a fence or other structure which prevents a continuance of the user, no right is acquired.29

25. Frink v. Stewart, 94 N. C. 484; Stickley v. Sodus Tp., 131 Mich. 510, 59 L. R. A. 287, 91 N. W. 745; See Rice v. Pershall, 41 Wash. 73, 82 Pac. 1038.

26. See Watson v. Board of Com'rs of Adams County, 38 Wash. 662, 80 Pac. 201; and ante, this section, note 14.

27. See Sprow v. Boston & A. R. Co., 163 Mass. 330, 39 N. E. 1024 and ante, Sec. 533(c), note 15.

28. State v. Green, 41 Iowa, 693; City of Topeka v. Cowee, 48 Kan. 345, 29 Pac. 560; Jennings v. Tisbury, 5 Gray, 73; Hodges v. West Bloomfleld, 186 Mich. 259, 152 N. W. 1056; State v. Auchard, 22 Mont. 14, 55 Pac. 361; Bler-k v. Keller, 73 Neb. 826, 103 N. W. 674; Bayard v. Standard Oil Co., 38 Ore 438, 63 Pac. 614; In re Twenty-second Ave. Southwest, 72 Wash. 99, 129 Pac. 884; Town of Rolling v. Emrich, 122 Wis. 134, 99 N. W. 464.

29. See Jones v. Phillips, 59 Ark. 35, 26 S. W. 386; O'connell v. Bowman, 45 111. App. 654; Weld v. Brooks, 152 Mass. 297, 25 N. E. 719; Jones v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 211 Mass. 521, 98 N. E. 607; Rolling v. Emrich, 122 Wis. 134, 99 N. W. 464.

It is occasionally said that the placing of such an obstacle to travel prevents a prescriptive highway because it shows an intention on the part of the landowner to exclude the public user. Harper v. State, 109 Ala. 66 19 So. 901; Whaley v. Wilson 120 Ala. 992, 24 So. 855; Shellhouse v. State. 110 Ind. 509, 11 N. E. 484; Village of Peotone v. Illinois Cent. R. .Co., 224 111. 101 79 N. E. 678; Campau v. City of Detroit, 104 Mich. 560, 62 N. W. 718; Shell v. Poulson, 23 Wash. 535, 63 Pac. 204; Megrath v. Nicker-son, 24 Wash. 235, 64 Pac. 163. In re Twenty-second Ave. Southwest, 72 Wash. 99, 129 Pac. 884; Jones v. Davis, 35 Wis. 376. This means, it appears, that such action on the part of the landlord is perhaps additional evidence to the same effect.34 But whether the action of the owner in contesting the public user merely by posting warnings not to trespass would be sufficient to prevent the acquisition of the right by the public, would seem to be open to question. If it is impossible to prevent the public travel without interfering with travel by those rightfully entitled, the safer course for him to adopt would seem to be the construction of gates.