DISCHAKGING WATER FROM EAVES. 107 



by ccrtiornri from the Quarter Sessions, it appeared that tliere was a 

 pubUc footpath across the hinds of the defendant, who had been accus- 

 tomed to plough up the paths, to the great inconvenience of the public. 

 The right of way being established by undisputed evidence, the learned 

 judge declared the law to be : That if the public were entitled to a road 

 (or footway) at all, they were entitled to a good one, and that either 

 the parish or the person occupying the field, as the custom might be, 

 was bound to keep it in a proper state for the use of the public ; that if 

 the road (or path) led from a village to the church, he apprehended the 

 proper persons to repair were the parish officers or way wardens ; that 

 it was easy, if the farmer chose, to plough up the field without ploughing 

 up the footpath, and if he did plough it up he was liable to fine and 

 imprisonment for destroying the road (or path) ; that the King's subjects 

 were not to be put to inconvenience, merely because he would not give 

 himself a little additional trouble in passing the plough parallel with 

 the path ; " and the defendant was find 40s. 



Discharging water from eaves on t-o land sifhject of action hg reversioner. 

 — Building a roof with eaves, which discharge rain-water on to the 

 land, may be injurious to the reversion, and will warrant the jury in 

 finding that the act alleged is an injury of a permanent character to the 

 land. But if the act be done merely with the view to establish an ease- 

 ment on the land, and is not in fact injurious to the reversion, the 

 action will not lie. The action by the reversioner is independent of 

 that by the tenant for damage to his possession. The Prescription Act 

 (2 & 3 Will. IV. c. 71, s. 8), reserves to the reversioner three years 

 for resisting any claim after his estate has come into possession, 

 though the full period of prescription has previously elapsed {Tucker v. 

 Newman, 11 Ad. & E. 40). 



Rule as to going 100 gards through turn-pike gate. — A person who 

 had here come on to the turn-pike road 20 yards below the gate, and 

 passed 300 yards through it, is liable to pay toll at a toll-gate, on a 

 turnpike road, though he has not travelled 100 gards on the road before 

 coming to the gate, if, after passing through the gate, he uses the road 

 for a space which together tvith that he has passed over previouslg exceeds 

 in all the distance of 100 gards {Horivood v. Powell). 



Composition for tolls made hg lessees are fiof illegal (Stott v. Clegg). 

 ConstrKction of" other thing" in Turnpike Roads Act. — The words "■ other 

 thing" in 3 Geo. lY. c. 126, s. 121, which imposes a penalty on persons 

 drawing " any timber, stone, or other thing " on a turnpike road other- 

 wise than on a wheeled carriage, were held to apply {Cockhitrn C.J. 

 d'ulh) only to things ejusdem generis, and therefore not to a load of 

 straw. Judgment was therefore for the respondent, and the view of 



