EVIDENCE OF EXISTENCE OF HIGHWAY. ]01 



judgment of the Queen's Bench in tliis case, and Nkldui v. Williams 

 as well, that the Statute of Limitations was no bar to the action, as no 

 cause of action arose to the iDlaintififs by the mere excavation by the 

 defendant of the pillars of plaintiff's coal in his own land, so long as it 

 caused no damage to the plaintiffs, and that the cause of action firs^ 

 accrued when the plaintiffs received actual damage. 



Compensation for Injury to Buildings hg Subsidence of Soil. — When 

 the working of mines, in however careful a manner, has occasioned 

 the subsidence of the land of another, although not immediately ad- 

 joining, damages may be recovered in respect of injury to buildings 

 thereon erected or enlarged within twenty years, provided their weight 

 did not occasion or contribute to the subsidence; and the action is 

 maintainable for damage to the possession and the reversion {Earner 

 and Strogan v. Knoivles). 



Right of soil to supjwrt for additional weight of huildings. — A right 

 to support for additional weight of buildings may be acquired as an 

 easement by twenty years of uninterrupted enjoyment {Partridge v. 

 Scott, 3 M. & W. 220), and after twenty years a house acquires a 

 right to the lateral support of soil round it [Browne v. Rohins). 



Three-fourtlis of a right of common. — A plea, of prescriptive right to 

 three-fourths of a right of common of pasture for one cow is bad 

 {Nichols V. Chapman). 



Evidence of existence of highwag. — In an action of trespass for 

 breaking and entering the plaintiff's land, on an issue raised whether 

 there was a highway over the locus in qua, there was evidence that 

 there had been a highway over the adjacent land, which was then, 

 together with such locus in quo, an open common. There was also 

 evidence that for many years the highway was obstructed by part 

 of it being included in an enclosure, which had been illegally made 

 on such common; and that during twenty years of that time, the 

 public had deviated a little from the line of way, by going outside 

 such enclosure, and on the locus in (luo. At the end of such time, 

 and before the plaintiff became the owner of the locus in quo, the 

 use of such substituted line of way was discontinued by reason of 

 a new road having been laid out in a diflFerent direction by an ad- 

 joining land proprietary. Afterwards, the obstruction to the old road 

 was removed, and the original line of way was reopened to the public. 

 It was held by Erie C.J. and Bgles J. {Williams J. diss.), that there 

 was no reasonable evidence on the above facts, on which a jury might 

 find that there was, in addition to any other highway, a highway run- 

 ning over the locus in quo {Dawes v. Hawkins, 29 L. J. C. P. 343). 



Evidence of user and dedication. — Although a cut de sac may be a 



