91 rREScraPTTVE PvTGHt of way. 



premises, nndcr their direction, was prevented from wheeling it through 

 a certain entry by the defendant. CoJn-iiVjo J. said, "If a grant had 

 been put in, confessing a right to ' lead manure,' the term would have 

 been construed according to the usnal mode of leading ; that is, by 

 drawing in a cart. The verdict here if undisturbed would be evidence 

 in a future action of right to lead in that manner." So in Higham v. 

 liahhif, the Court of Common Pleas held that the finding by the jury 

 that the defendant had a limited right of way only for the purpose of 

 carting away timber from the wood to the highway, did not support a 

 ]ilea of a general right of way on foot with horses, cattle, carts, waggons, 

 «tc., at all times of the year at his free will and pleasure, and that the 

 rules of Hilary Term (-1 Will. IV. ss. 4, 5, G) did not admit of their 

 entering the verdict distributive for the defendant on it. 



Evidence of a prcscn'pfire right of way for all manner of carriages does 

 not necessarily prove a right of way for all manner of cattle, but it is 

 evidence of a drift-way for the jury to consider, togetlier with the other 

 evidence, and the extent of the usage is evidence of a right only com- 

 mensurable with the user {Ballard v. Dgson). It was here in evidence 

 that the preceding occupier had been accustomed to drive fat hogs that 

 ■way to his slaughter-house ; and that the plaintiff had been accustomed 

 to drive a cart, the only carriage which he possessed, usually drawn by 

 a horse, but sometimes by an ox, along the passage in question to the 

 barn, where he kept his cart, but there was then no other w'ay to it. 

 He had lately begun to drive fat oxen that way to the premises, for the 

 purpose of killing them there, but there was no evidence of any other 

 usage than this of the way for the cattle. No deed of grant was pro- 

 duced, and the defendant brought no evidence that he had ever inter- 

 ru])ted the occui)iers of plaintiffs' premises in driving cattle there, nor 

 that they had been usually possessed of horned cattle which had not 

 been driven that way, and he admitted that there was sufficient evidence 

 of a right of Avay for all manner of carriages. It was contended for the 

 I)laintilf in replevin, that a way for all manner of carriages necessarily 

 included a right of Avay for all manner of cattle, and therefore proved 

 the prescription. The jury found for the defendant, and a new trial 

 was refused. Heath J. said, " This is a prescription for a way for 

 cattle, and a carriage-way is proved. A carriage-way will comprehend 

 a horse- way, but not a drift- way. All prescriptions are stricti juris. 

 Some prescriptions are for a way to market, others for a way to church, 

 and in the ancient entries, both in Jlasiat and Clift, the pleadings are 

 very particular in stating these claims. Sometimes there is a carriage- 

 way qualified. One claim is remarkable, fugare qiiadraginia averia. 

 The usage then, in this case, is evidence of a very different grant from 



