35:J PLEA OF LIBERUM TEXEMENTUM. 



which the way is claimed, if it describe them as " a close in the parish," 

 &c., "and county," &c., " called B, with certain lands thereunto ad- 

 joinmg ; and another close called M, and divers, to wit two, other 

 closes next adjoining thereunto ; " claiming a way from B to M and 

 back for the better use, occupation, &c., of B and the said lands ad- 

 joining thereto, and of M and the said adjoining closes respectively 

 {Holt V. Daw). 



And per Lord CamphcU C.J. : " It appears with sufficient certainty 

 that there is but one way in question ; and the tenn'uii are specifically 

 described by name, as well as of the two closes in respect of which it is 

 claimed. The other lands and closes in respect of which it is claimed 

 are stated to be adjoining to those that are expressly named ; and if 

 they had been described by name, or by metes and bounds, the plain- 

 tiff would have derived little advantage from such particularity, as the 

 defendant was not ])0und to prove his right in respect of any but the 

 two closes named as the termini, and would have been entitled to the 

 verdict if he had proved his right in respect of them, though he had 

 failed as to all the others, as appears from Ricketts v. Salwey" 



" In Stott V. Stott the defendant justified under a right of way in re- 

 spect of a certain messuage, and divers (to wit, 50) acres of laud. In 

 Simpson V. Lcwthivaite the defendant claimed the right of way in re- 

 spect of 100 acres of land contiguous and next adjoining to one of the 

 closes in which, &c. In Colchester v. Rol>erts the defendant justified 

 under a claim of a right of way in respect of a messuage, and divers 

 (to wit, three) closes of land near to the close in which, &c. There is, 

 therefore, abundant authority in the precedents for such a mode of 

 Dleadiuo- and no case was cited in point to show that such a form is 

 objectionable." 



In trespass quare clausum fregit, the defendant is entitled to plead 

 liherum tenementim, together wdth a plea denying that the close ■ in 

 which, &c., is the plaintiflTs {Slocomhe v. Lijall). And per Parke B. : 

 " They do not necessarily relate to the same subject-matter of defence. 

 Under the plea that the close is not the plaintift^'s, he must prove him- 

 self in possession, and that is sufficient until the defendant shows a 

 better title • but the plea of liherum lenementum sets up the title of the 

 defendant. Under the denial that the close is the plaintiff's, both pos- 

 session and title may be in issue, which is not the case with liherum 

 tenementumJ' (ih.) As to new assignment see Bracegirdle v. Peacock, 

 Rohertson v. Gauntlett, Bowen v. Jenkin, Norman v. Wescomhe, 

 Brancker v. Molijneaax, and Hayling v. Oakey, and the review of 

 the older authorities laid down in the note to the case of Gree7ie v. 

 Jones. 



