9S RIGHT TO DIG BRICK EARTH. 



Coiuraon l^leus on a special case, that the pkiiutiffs, under tliese Circum- 

 stances, could not maintain an action against the defendants for 

 obstructing: the passage of light to their warehouse windows, as no one 

 of the existing windows substantially corresponded with any of the 

 ancient lights ; and per Channell B. and Blackburn J., that it was not 

 necessary in the present case to decide whether there is a right to block up 

 a new window, if it cannot be done without also blocking up an ancient 

 unaltered one. And jwr Curiam : "■ We entirely concur in the judg- 

 ment of Patlerson J., in Bhtnchard v. Brt/dges (4 Ad. & E. 176), that 

 lights in respect of which the right of action is sought to be enforced 

 must be substantially the same as the lights which have been gained 

 by user or grant, and that no new light can be substituted without the 

 consent of ihe owner of the servient tenement " {Hutchinson and Others 

 V. Copestahe and Otheis, 31 L. J. C. P. 19 Ex. Ch.). 



Bight of digging for hrick earth to he talcen into consideration under the 

 General Inclosure Act. — Where proceedings were taken under the 

 General Inclosure Act, 8 & 9 Vict. c. 118, for the inclosure of certain 

 land at the instigation of persons who claimed rights of common over 

 the same, and the owner of such land was interested therein in respect 

 of brick-earth which he could get from it without interfering with the 

 rights of common, it was held that the interest of such owner in respect 

 of the brick-earth ought to be taken into consideration by the Assistant 

 Commissioner in calculating the interests of the assenting and dissenting 

 parties, under sec. 27, notwithstanding all " mines, minerals, stones, and 

 other substrata " had been expressly reserved to such owner by the 

 provisional order; and the Court granted a prohibition against the Com- 

 missioners proceeding with the inclosure without the consent of such 

 owner, or taking the value of his interest in the brick-earth into account 

 in reckoning the assents and dissents {Church v. Inclosure Commissioners). 



Custom to dig clag in a cojnjliold not unreasonable. — A custom in a 

 manor that copyholders of inheritance may, without licence of the lord, 

 break the surface and dig and get clay without stint out of their copy- 

 hold tenements, for the purpose of making bricks for sale oif the manor, 

 is good in law. This was decided in error on a bill of exceptions to the 

 ruling of Bgles J., and the judgment of the Exchequer affirmed. It 

 was contended that the custom to take the soil and surface without stint 

 tends to the destruction of the inheritance, and is unreasonable and 

 void in law, but per Curiam .- " We are, however, unable to draw any 

 sound distinction between a custom lor copyholders to take all the 

 timber or trees, or all the minerals, in their cop}h()lds, and such a 

 custom to take clay as that in question. It aj)poars to us that the 

 cases of jJrofil ajjrendre or easement on the waste of the lord or in alieno 



