GOULSDON COMMONS. Ill 



satisfied that one of the Messrs. Hall had proved his 

 case. In the course of his judgment he said * 



" The law I take it to be that the Lord of the Manor may- 

 take gravel waste, loam, and the like, in the waste, so long as he 

 does not infringe npon the Commoners' rights. His right to 

 do so is quite independent of the right of approvement under the 

 Statute of Merton or at common law, and exists by reason of 

 his ownership of the soil, subject only to the interests of the 

 Commoners. Judge Bayley, in ' Arlett v. Ellis/ said that 

 the lord has rights of his own reserved upon the waste I do not 

 say subservient to, but concurrent with the rights of Commoners. 

 And when it is ascertained that there is more Common than 

 is necessary for the cattle of the Commoners, the lord, as 

 it seems to me, is entitled to take that for his own use." 



He went on to say that in the case of gravel dig- 

 ging, the " onus probandi " that it interfered with the 

 right of common, rested with the Commoner, and not, as 

 in the case of approvement, with the Lord of the 

 Manor. He gave, however, an injunction to restrain 

 Mr. Byron from making inclosures, and from carry- 

 ing away or destroying the loam and gravel of the 

 waste, or the pasture or herbage growing thereon, 

 so as in any manner to prevent, disturb, or interfere 

 with the exercise by Mr. Hall, or the other persons 

 entitled, of these rights over the waste lands of the 

 Manor. 



The Judge also found against the attempted restric- 

 tion of rights of common to particular Commons of the 

 Manor, holding that the arrangements of this character 



* Hall v. Byron, L.R. 4. Ch. Div., 667. 

 M 



