1885.] LEGAL. 269 



were distinctly ascertained and were capable of being ascertained. 

 The defendant claims to be lord of the manor of Lowestoft, and had 

 recently, for the first time, set up a claim to some portion of the 

 foreshore on the north and south sides of the piers and harbours, as 

 being parcel of the manor ; but the Crown alleged that such claim 

 was unfounded, and that the defendant was not entitled to any part 

 of the foreshore of the sea at Lowestoft. He. ^Iso claims that, even 

 if he is not entitled to the foreshore generally, he is entitled to that 

 portion of the original foreshore and bed of ' the sea on the north 

 side of the north pier which is now left uncovered at ordinary high 

 tides, owing to the recession of the sea consequent on the construc- 

 tion of the pier and liarbour works ; but this claim also was disputed 

 by the Crown, and this information was filed on the Equity side of 

 the Court to try the question and uphold the title of the Crown to 

 the land in question ; that is, land acquired by accretion from the 

 sea, which was alleged on the part of the Crown not to have been 

 so gradual as to be imperceptible, but to have been from time to 

 time perceptible and attributable to the effect of the pier and 

 harbour works. On the part of the defendant, the lord of the manor, 

 the title of the Crown was admitted to the foreshore, but the land 

 in question was claimed as acquired by gradual and imperceptible 

 accretion to the soil of his manor from the sea, and also as caused 

 by the pier and harbour works created under grants derived from 

 the Crown. The issues thus raised came on to be tried before a 

 Court constituted of two judges, without a jury, the information 

 being tried on the equity side of the Court, and all cases on that side 

 having been so tried in ancient times, and, as already mentioned, the 

 ancient practice of the Court of Exchequer in Crowfi cases still suli- 

 sisting, save so far as altered by the Crown Suits Act, and no change 

 having taken place in this respect. 



The witnesses, in cross-examination, stated that the sea had receded 

 rapidly — though perceptibly — of late years, the beach gradually 

 increasing on the north side of the works, not the south side. They 

 were asked whether the shore had not increased since 1850 at the 

 rate of 14 feet per annum, but could not say at what rate. They 

 stated that since 1845, when the north pier was begun, the line of 

 ordinary high-water mark began to recede and the beach to advance, 

 and that this advance of the beach could be plainly perceived from 

 time to time as it went on. Then the depositions of witnesses on 

 behalf of the defendant were read, to the effect that the accretion was 

 imperceptible and caused by the harbour works. It had been going 

 on ever since 1830. At one part it was stated that the accretion 

 was as much as 1200 feet, perhaps it averaged 30 feet in a year. It 

 might be perceptible perhaps in a month. Since 1878 the accretion 



