170 EIGHT OF FISHING. 



by evidence that such part is Avitliin the parish, and in the absence of 

 evidence it must be presumed that tlic hmd is extra-parochial, and 

 therefore not liable to be rated {Rffj. v. JIusson). 



Where, in trespass qu. cl. freg. {Jones v. Williams) the plaintiff 

 claimed the whole bed of a river flowing between his land and the 

 defendant's who contended that each was entitled ad medium fllum 

 aquiT, it was held, on the principle laid down in Doe v. Kemp, that 

 evidence of acts of ownershij) exercised hy the plaintiff on the bed and 

 hanJcs of f/ie river on the defendant's side, lower down the stream, and 

 where it flowed between the plaintiffs land and a farm adjoining the 

 defendant's land ; and also of repairs done by the plaintiff to a fence, 

 which divided that farm from the river, and was in continuation of a 

 fence dividing the defendant's land from the river — was admissible for 

 the plaintifi'. Such acts of ownership in another part of one continuous 

 hedge, and in the whole bed of the river, adjoiuing the i)laintiff's land, 

 are admissible in evidence, on the ground that they are such acts as 

 may reasonably lead to the inference that the entire hedge and bed of 

 the river, and consequently the part in dispute, belonged to the plaintiff'. 

 Andyw Parlce B., "Acts of o^vnership are not admitted in evidence on 

 the ground of acquiescence ; that goes only to the value of the evidence; 

 but as showing possession, and so proving title" (2 N. C. 102, Ex. Ch.). 



On a grant of a certain water, the ri/jht ofjishinfj passes to grantee, but 

 not the soil (Co. Litt. 4 h.). An injunction goes to restrain defendants 

 from injuring fish ponds by obstructing them, and not keeping the sills 

 in repair {Earl Bathurst v. Burden). The right of the fioiv of water to 

 a 'pond was greatly considered in Hale v. Oldroyd, in which the plaintiff 

 alleged a reversionary interest in three closes of land, to wit, three jmnds 

 filled with water, one on each close, and a right to the overflow of a 

 certain stream of water from an ancient public well in the defendant's 

 close into the plaintiffs three closes, to water his cattle, which stream 

 the defendant had diverted. The defendant, in addition to his j)lea of 

 Not (juiltij, traversed the right of the tenant to such overflow. The 

 plaintiff had enjoyed an immemorial right to the overflow of this water 

 into an ancient pond in one of these closes ; but more than tliirty years 

 before, he had made a new pond in each, and the old one had gradually 

 got filled up with rubbish and grass. This right in respect to the three 

 ponds was defeated by proof of an outstanding life estate, under 2 & 3 

 Will. IV. c. 71, s. 7. It was held that he Avas entitled under this decla- 

 ration to recover in respect of his right to the overflow of water to the 

 oWpond (14 M. & W. 789). 



Parke B. said, " The use of the old pond was discontinued, only 

 because the plaintiff obtained the same or a greater advantage from 



