ARGUMENT OF SIR WILLIAM ROBSON. 1695 



SIR W. ROBSON : Of course, the phraseology would be to say that 

 the owner of a servitude has an easement ; we do not say that ; we do 

 not say that on one side you have an easement and on the other a 

 servitude. We apply the same word, " easement," to both sides of 

 the right. 



THE PRESIDENT : Then the starting point is the prcedium dominans 



instead of the prcedinm serviensf 



1025 SIR W. ROBSON : Yes. What we say is that where one per- 

 son enjoys an easement the other person suffers an easement. 



SIR CHARLES FITZPATRICK : But a servitude is related to property. 

 Property is under a servitude and a person is under an easement ? 



SIR W. ROBSON : Yes, though when you are dealing with property 

 you say that one is subject to an easement and the other is entitled 

 to an easement That is merely in relation to private law. But, 

 in so far as international law is concerned. I do not know of any 

 case where an English writer I may not be correct here in 1818, or 

 prior to 1818, ever talked of such a thing as a servitude. I do not 

 know that the name occurs in connection with English law in 1818. 

 I think I shall show that it does not, but, of course, one speaks with 

 a little doubt where the range of investigation is so vast. I have 

 given in the last few weeks great attention to all the writers I could 

 discover and have had time to read on this subject and I think I am 

 safe in saying that up to 1818 nobody, outside of Germany, with two 

 possible exceptions, that I think I can explain, ever treated a servi- 

 tude as being a part of international law at all. 



I will deal with the 'authors in groups. I have considered how to 

 get up this part of my case as briefly as I could. Mr. Turner Avas 

 compelled to take five or six days to it. I am afraid I shall not be 

 able to finish this afternoon, but I shall finish in a very short time by 

 dealing with the different authors in groups and showing how they 

 affect each of the material questions. 



SIR CHARLES FITZPATRICK : Going back to the question of an ease- 

 ment, does an easement convey any title in a property subject to 

 easement ? 



SIR W. ROBSON : No, there is no connection with ownership. 



SIR CHARLES FITZPATRICK : Is not that the essential difference ? 



SIR W. ROBSON : Yes. There is no connection with ownership at 

 all. I was referring to an easement on the mere question of nomen- 

 clature; I was not referring to the characteristics of an easement. 

 While you might speak of the easement of the dominant and servient 

 parties, we do not want the word " servient " 



JUDGE GRAY: There might be an easement attached to a property 

 in favour of the abutting property ? 



SIR W. ROBSON : Certainly. Now. let me come to the question of 

 what is a servitude and then I think I will come to the point raised 



