100 PLOUGHIXG Ur FOOTPATHS. 



years, leading from a farm on the N. estate, occupied by the plaintifT 

 over his land, and over land oeenpicd by the defendant on the N. V. 

 estate. The way had been used l)y the occupier of the plaintiff's farm 

 before and after tlie "iOth of January, in which month the deed of par- 

 tition was executed. By the deed, H conveyed his undivided moiety in 

 the N. estate to P., and as part of the farm occupied by the plaintiff 

 with others, " with their and every of their rights, members, easements, 

 and appurtenances." P. also conveyed his undivided moiety in the N. V. 

 estate to H. The plaintilf and his predecessors used the way up to 

 January 1859, when it was obstructed by the defendant. It was held 

 in an action brought by the plaintiff in respect of such obstruction, 

 that the way in question did not pass under words used in the deed 

 of partition, and that the plaintiff could not recover ( Worthington v. 

 Gimson. For Pyer v. Carier, see 2% L. J. Ex. 25S). 



Eridcnces of dedication of jmvate farm road to the jjuUic — The occa- 

 sional user of a farm road by strangers chiefly for purposes of pleasure 

 is evidence of a public rather than a private way, and may be evidence 

 of a dedication to the public as a highway, but must be well weighed 

 with reference to permission, repair, and all other circumstances tending 

 to show whether the owner ever intended such a dedication, especially 

 if it leads to a place of resort for mere purposes of pleasure : per Erie 

 C.J. {JlildredY. Weaver). 



Mere tracJrs in wood not proof of highwaij. — The mere use of tracks in 

 a wood by people where they were free to wander about as they pleased, 

 is not necessarily enough to show a dedication of such tracks to the 

 public as public footways : per ErU C. J., Chapman v. Crijips and Others 

 (2 V. &. F. 8G4) ; and evidence that in a place of resort for pleasure, as 

 a wood or the hke, people have gone about wherever they pleased, there 

 being no definite enduring trackway in any particular direction, but 

 merely temporary and transitory tracks, not passable in wet weather, 

 varying every season and never proved to be repaired, was held by 

 Wifjhiman J. not to be evidence on which a jury could properly find 

 either a public highway or a public ri;jht of resort for air and exercise, 

 or a prescriptive right of way (Srha'inr/e v. iJouvIt). 



Charging settled estate icith expense of road through another p)art of the 

 estates. — The court will not sanction the sale of any part of settled 

 estates, that the purchase-money may be applied in laying out and 

 making roads through another part of the estates : jier RomiJlg M.E. 

 {In re Chambers's Settled Estates). 



Ptoiigliing up footpaths. — In Bright v. Hireet, which was tried at 

 Taunton Assizes some years since, the /-•///.• as to ptoaghing vp footpaths 

 was thus laid down : " In tin's case, which wa,, an indictnient brought 



