1885.] LEGAL. 33^ 



i 



EGAL. 



THE CROWN AND FORESHORES. 

 The Attorney-Gexeral ox behalf of Her Majesty v. Reeve. 



LORD COLERIDGE delivered a written judgment on August 

 10th in this case, in the Queen's Bench Division, sitting in 

 Banco, Mr. Baron Pollock being likewise on the Bench. The case 

 was reported in our last issue (page 268), and, as our readers will 

 remember, it is a claim by the Crown against the Lord of the ]\Lanor 

 of Lowestoft, Suffolk, to establish title to a tract of land, about 1200 

 feet in width, which it is desired now to utilize for a new dock, and 

 which has been formed by accretions from the sea, principally during 

 the last forty years. Lord Coleridge cited many authorities, including 

 Lord Hale, to show that the rule of the law governing such a case 

 had long been established without any material variation. Thus, 

 Lord Hale, who holds that " the King has a title to maritima incre- 

 mcnta, or increase of land by the sea ; and this is of three kinds, 

 viz.: — 1. The increase j:>c?' cdhiviooicm is when the sea, by casting 

 up sand and earth, doth by degrees increase the land, and shut itself 

 out farther than the ancient bounds went ; and this is usual. The 

 reason why this lielongs to the Crown is because in truth the soil, 

 where there is now dry land, was formerly part of the vevy fimdus 

 maris, and consequently belonged to the King. And indeed, if such 

 alluvion be so insensible that it cannot be by any means found tliat 

 the sea was there, the laud thus increased belongs as a perquisite to 

 the owner of the land adjacent, 2. The increase 2'^'^'^^ rclictioncm, or 

 recess of the sea. This doth de jure communi belong to the King, for 

 as the sea is parcel of the wast or demesne, so of necessity the land 

 that lies under it, and therefore it belongs to the King when left 

 by the sea ; and so also it regularly holds in lands deserted by a 

 river, that is an arm of the sea or a creek of the sea jJrimf- facie, 

 especially if the creek or river be part of a fort." 3. Again, in Part i. 

 ch. vii. : " For the jus a.lluvionis, wliich is an increase of land by the 

 projection of the sea, casting and adding sand and slubb to the 

 adjoining land, whereby it is increased, and for the most part by 

 insensible degrees." " This jus alluvionis is by the law of England, 

 the King's — viz., if by any marks or measures it can be known 

 what is so gained ; for if the gain be so insensible and indiscernible 

 by any limits or marks that it cannot be known, as well in maritime 

 increases as in the increases by inland rivers." In The King v. 

 Lord Yarborough, 3 B. and C. 91, in which the same question as 

 is raised in the present case had been determined by the verdict of 

 a jury, Lord Hale's rule was cited and approved, but no material 



