398 LEGAL. [Oct. 



and if only minute filaments still held it to the soil, and not sub- 

 stantial roots, it would also be practically severed ; but otherwise, 

 if force was required to detach it before removing it, it would be at 

 law still " attached " to the soil. The other Lords Justices con- 

 curred. Each judge expressly stated his view that " growth " and 

 " life " in the tree had nothing to do with the question ; a tree 

 might have ceased to grow, and yet be attached to the freehold. 

 As Lord Justice Lindley put it, suppose this storm, instead of 

 felling the trees, had blasted them all as they stood. Their life and 

 growtli would have then come to an end as fully as if they had 

 been blown down, and yet they would undoubtedly have remained 

 attached to the freehold. This ruling seems sound, and we do not 

 expect to see it disturbed by the House of Lords, even if the case 

 goes up to that tribunal. Had Mr. Ainslie lived he would un- 

 doubtedly have benefited by this windfall, for the trees would have 

 been eventually severed and utilized for his benefit. If their 

 remaining roots had even been cut before the breath was out of his 

 body, the fallen timber would have become " personalty " through 

 that process, and as such would have passed under his will. The 

 omission to do this was natural while the owner of the estate was 

 on his deathbed ; but it was an unfortunate one for those interested 

 in his personal estate. 



In regard to the claim of the Crown to the Norfolk foreshore 

 vacated by the sea as detailed in our last number (p. 333), the 

 main question was one of fact, viz. whether this retrocession of the 

 tidal action had been so gradual as to be imperceptible from year to 

 year, or had been sufficiently defined to be clearly marked from 

 time to time. The Crown claims tidal water and foreshore, not 

 because the tide docs flow there, but because it did flow there at a 

 time when the title of the Crown accrued. If an earthquake were 

 to raise the bottom of the sea high and dry adjoining the estate of 

 a subject whose boundary was " high-water mark," the subject 

 would have no claim to the elevated soil. If, on the other hand, 

 the sea broke in and flooded a subject's lands, the Crown would not 

 thereby become the owner of the submerged soil. This was shown 

 in the case of Mayor of Carlisle v. Graham. The river Eden 

 changed its course, and invaded Mr. Graham's soil in a new channel. 

 The public set up a right of public fishing in the new channel, 

 because there had been such a right in the old one ; Mr. Graham 

 successfully resisted the claim. Where a margin of water is a 

 landmark, or where an imaginary line between two margins, i.e. a 

 mid-channel line, is the boundary, the position of the water primd 

 facie suggests the site of the boundary, but that is all. Where 

 water imperceptibly changes the position of its margin, the land- 



