296 ROADSIDE WASTES. 



a decree without contest in the Courts, and we had the 

 satisfaction of seeing him remove his beautiful wall and 

 re-erect it on its proper site, at his own cost, instead of 

 at ours. So angry was he, however, that he subse- 

 quently ploughed up the strip of land which he was 

 forced to throw out. Process was then taken before 

 the magistrates at Maidenhead, and this foolish and 

 ill-tempered attempt to annoy the public was visited 

 with an appropriate sentence. 



This vindication of the public rights put an end 

 to the encroachments on roadside wastes in that 

 district. We felt, however, that we had only 

 performed a duty, which ought to have been under- 

 taken by the local authority of the district, on behalf 

 of the public. The difficulty consisted not in the law, 

 but in the absence of a local authority interested, on 

 behalf of the public, in enforcing it, in the ignorance 

 of the law on the part of the highway authorities, and 

 in the want of summary means for enforcing it. The 

 law already gives a summary remedy by penalty, in the 

 case of any obstruction within fifteen feet of the centre 

 of the highway, and most highway boards are under 

 the impression that this is a legal definition of the 

 width of the road, and that adjoining owners are 

 entitled to advance their fences up to this point, so 

 as to inclose the roadside waste. This, however, is a 

 distinct error, and although there is no summary 

 remedy outside the limit of fifteen feet, yet it is clear 

 that the public are entitled to the use of the land 

 beyond, which is within the definition of a roadside 



