104 ETGHT OF WAY. 



Ril/hf of icaij aj^pur tenant. — A plot of building ground liaving been 

 conveyed v>itli a right of way over a new road leading thereto from a 

 high road, it was held by the Court of Common Pleas that if that plot 

 of land is subsequently demised by parol, the right of way passes also, 

 although not specially mentioned {Skull v. Gtenister, 33 L. J. C. P. 185). 



Imptieil grant of way of necesfiitij. — Where the owner of a farm severed 

 it by will among his two sous, and the moiety devised to one son was 

 landlocked, except where it abutted on the moiety devised to the other, 

 yet the will made no mention of any ways whatsoever, it was held by 

 ihe Exchequer Chamber, atiirming the decision of the Court of Queen's 

 Bench, that some way passed by implication under the will, and that 

 the Court would look at the previous occupation of the testator's pro- 

 perty to see what way was meant by him to pass. Under these circum- 

 stances, where the access to the landlocked premises, and to the farm 

 buildings upon them, had been in the testator's lifetime by one par- 

 ticular road across the moiety devised to the other son, and the enjoy- 

 ment of the landlocked premises in the state they were in when devised 

 was not complete without this particular road, the Court held that this 

 particular road passed under the will, and not merely " a way of 

 necessity ; " and semhic, that if a way of necessity only had passed, the 

 way would have been limited by the necessity (Reff. v. Pearson). 



Conveyance of a dose adjoininy highway implies that of hiyhway vsque 

 ad mcditan Jihnn vice.. — Where a close of land adjoins a highway, the 

 presumption of law is that half of such highway, vsque ad medium filum, 

 passes with the conveyance of the close ; and such presumption is not 

 rebutted by the fact that the close is separated from the highway by a 

 fence, and is defined in the conveyance by admeasurement and reference 

 to a plan which did not include such highway, and the cases of Simpson 

 V. Dendy (8 C. B. 433), and Lord v. tJie Commissioners of the City of 

 Sydney (12 Moo. 473), arc authorities to that effect {Jjerridge v. 

 Ward, 30 L. J. C. P. 218). 



Map held inadmissihle under certain circumstances to prove rights of 

 iray. — To prove that there was a public right of way over certain 

 closes, part of a manor, the defendant put in evidence a map used by 

 a deceased stewai'd of the manor at the Manor Courts, for the purpose 

 of defining the copyholds. In it, there appeared a space marked out 

 by two lines crossing the closes in question, and called Mellow Lane. 

 There were occupation ways, as well as public highways, marked upon 

 the map, but there was nothing to distinguish one from another, nor 

 was there anything to show that the space marked out as above 

 mentioned was a public liighway at all. The map was held inadmis- 

 sible : the deceased steward did not make the map, nor was it proved to 



