ACCEETION OF LAx\D. 1C9 



Incidents of the sea-shore. — The sea-shore below high water-mark, and 

 without inhabitants, is an extra-parochial place, having a population 

 less than two hundred persons within the meaning of sec. 6 of 18 & 19 

 Vict. c. 121 {Rcij. on 'proson. of Earl Derlnj v. Gee and Others). Part of 

 sea-shore between high and low water-mark is within and part of the 

 adjoining county ; so that the justices of the county have jurisdiction 

 to take cognizance of ofPences committed therein, whether land be 

 covered with water or not at the time the offence is committed. And 

 per Gockburn C.J. : "It is clear upon the authorities, as also upon Reg. v. 

 Musson (27 L. J., N. S., Q. B., 222), where it was distinctly held that 

 such part of the sea was within the county, that the justices had juris- 

 diction to entertain this matter, and that that jurisdiction ought to be 

 exercised " (Embteton appt. v. Brown resp.). 



Projterf// in accretions from a non-navi gable river. — Accretions from 

 the gradual change of the course of a non-navigable river, where there 

 are no fixed boundaries, will become the property of the owner of the 

 adjoining land {Ford v. Lacey). 



But in cases of gradual accretion, the land gained belongs to the 

 proprietor of the adjacent soil. Parlcc B. held it as settled that en- 

 croachments made by a tenant are for the benefit of the landlord, unless 

 it appear clearly, by some act done at the time of the making of the 

 encroachments, that the tenant intended the encroachments for his own 

 benefit, and not to hold them as he held the farm to which the encroach- 

 ments were adjacent {Doe dcm. Lewis \. Bees). This action was one of 

 ejectment by the lessor of the plaintiff, to recover from the defendant a 

 piece of laud encroached from the sea coast by the defendant, while 

 tenant to the lessor of the plaintiff of his farm, which did not extend 

 quite down to the sea shore, till the defendant made the encroachment 

 in question. There is no obligation on a parish to repair a road when it 

 is washed awag bg the sea {Reg. v. Inhabitants of Hornsea) ; and ^^er 

 Maule J., " There is no such thing as an absolute right of the public 

 against the act of God and the processes of nature. The repairs to 

 roads which the common law contemplated, were repairs which could 

 be done by the farmers and their labourers. Here to repair the road, 

 you must begin by restoring the cliff." 



A grant by the Crown of " all coals under the commons, waste 

 grounds, or marshes " of a certain manor, was held by Stuart V.C. and 

 Watson B. to pass coal Iging under the fore-shore of the estuary of the 

 river Dee, between high and low water-marks, and forming part of such 

 manor {The Attorney-General v. Hanmer). If the officers of a parish 

 claim a right to rate a person occupying that part of the sea-shore which 

 lies between high and low water-marks, the onus lies upon them to show 



