1885.] LEGAL. 399 



mark suggested by the water also shifts iniperceptil)ly ; hut if the 

 water from some sudden agency perceptibly alters its situation, then 

 the boundary remains where it can still be identified, even though 

 that land which was dry may have become inundated, and vice vcrsd. 

 Theoretically, at the time when the Goodwin estates were, as history 

 tells us, invaded by the sea, and were transmogrified into what are 

 now the Goodwin Sands, Earl Godwin might have successfully 

 maintained his right to the flooded soil to such extent as he could 

 prove his original boundaries. In the Norfolk case, it was clearly 

 shown that the action of the sea, sometimes in a single flood tide, 

 piled up the shingle to such an extent as to raise the foreshore — 

 which at the tide before had been flooded — once and for all above 

 the level of high water, and for several feet. There was not an 

 imperceptible accretion of foreshore, but the old landmark was 

 violently moved from day to day by the forces of nature. Judgment 

 was accordingly given for the Crown. In this case the Crown 

 looked after its own interests, and successfully ; but a converse case 

 might well occur elsewhere, as in the Eden episode. 



CAN A PROPRIETOR WORK MINERALS BELOW A 

 PUBLIC RAILWAYS 



Chancery Division. — Before. Mr. Justice Peai;son. 



THE midland railway COMPANY V. MILES. 



THIS was a motion on the part of the Midland Eailway Com- 

 pany to restrain the defendant from crossing their line with 

 horses and carts, for the purpose of working certain minerals 

 (namely, clay and gypsum) from tlie surface of a triangular piece of 

 land of about seven acres enclosed between the plaintiffs' main line 

 and its two connections with a branch. The defendant had been 

 the owner of the minerals under the plaintiffs' line. He gave notice 

 of his intention to work them. The Company gave counter-notice 

 to purchase the minerals within 40 yards of their line, and the 

 defendant now alleged that he was cut off by the act of the Com- 

 pany from all access to his minerals except over their line. 



Mr. Cozens Hardy, Q.C., and Mr. Phipson Beale appeared for the 

 plaintiff Company. 



Mr. Everitt, Q.C., and Mr. Chadwyck Healey, for the defendant, 

 argued that power given to the owners of several mines by section 

 80 of the Ptailways Clauses Consolidation Act did not extend to 

 cases where the Company had purchased not only the minerals 

 under the railway itself, but the minerals for 40 yards on each 



