lO-Z EIGHT OF JUSTICE AS TO HIGHWAY. 



highway, and although the old doctrine that a higliway must lead 

 from one public place to another may not be strictly correct, yet 

 where a road leads to a place which is not public, and which the 

 public enter only by permission (as where it leads to the gates of a 

 park), the user of the road by all persons who seek such entry with- 

 out evidence of nser for any other purpose, is not a user surEcient 

 to warrant the conclusion of a dedication to the public as a highway 

 and a liability in the pai-ish to repair (Reg. v. Parish of Hawlchurst). 



For right of jnihlic to eujogmcnt of highicag. — Wliere an ordinary 

 highway runs between fences, one on each side, the right of the pass- 

 age which the public have along it extends primS, facie, and unless 

 there be evidence to the contrary, over the whole space between the 

 Jeuces ; and the public are entitled to the use of the entire space {Reg. 

 V. U.K. Electric Telegraph Company {limited), 31 L. J. M. C. 166). 



Enclosing to within fifteen feet of centre of highway. — The common 

 notion that owners of land on the sides of a highway may encroach 

 or enclose up to within fifteen feet of the centre is an error, and the 

 question will always be as to the extent of the highway by user : per 

 Erie J. {Reg. v. Johnson). 



Rit/hf of Justices to determine ichether road is a highway. — On the 

 hearing of a complaint under 5 & 6 Will. IV. c. 50, sec. 73, for 

 leaving rubbish on a highway, after notice to remove it, the defendant, 

 who was the owner of the land on both sides of the alleged highway, 

 denied it to be the highway, and as he claimed the soil subject to a 

 private right of way only, he contended that the justices ought not to 

 adjudicate in the matter, on the ground tliat title to land came in 

 question ; and it was held that the objection was untenable, for that 

 the justices had jurisdiction under the statute to determine whether 

 the road was a highway or not. And per Wightman J., the question 

 of title to the land does not properly arise ; and per Compton J. " I was 

 struck by the way the point was raised, viz., that the matter of title 

 comes into question, because the appellant claims the land subject 

 only to the easement of a private right of road. As a general rule, 

 no doubt, justices are not to decide on summary conviction, the title 

 to land; and as I said in Reg. v. Cridland (27 L. J. (N". S.) M. C. 28), 

 this docs not depend on any exception in the particular statute, so 

 much as on the principle generally applicable to summary convictions. 

 But in this particular case, the magistrates were to decide on theques- 

 tion whether the alleged highway was a highway or not; this in some 

 sort may be said to involve a question connected with title to land, but 

 that consideration cannot oust them of jurisdiction where they are the 

 tribunal appointed to decide that very question, highway or no highway. 



