NOTES AND QUERIES. 849 
claimed the land covered by the Fleet, the Chesil Bank, the wildfowl 
decoy, and the Swannery. On December 26th, 1887, the Defendants, 
who represented the fishermen on the coast, it was said, came up the Fleet 
in boats, penetrated into the Swannery, fired off guns, and made violent 
noises, which disturbed and frightened the birds, the result being that 
several flew away. The Plaintiff then brought this action simply to establish 
his right to the Swannery, the Fleet, and the Chesil Bank, but he had no 
intention to interfere with the fishing industry, and, in fact, he had conceded 
the right of the Defendants and other persons having lawful occasion to 
cross the Fleet in that part which was outside the Abbotsbury parish, and 
to use the eastern portion of Chesil Bank for hauling their boats, dragging 
their nets to shore, and drying them, &c.; but he objected to their navigating 
the Fleet west of Abbotsbury stone, where the Swannery was. The 
Defendants contended that they were entitled to use all parts of the bank 
and the Fleet, and that the Fleet was an arm of the sea, subject to the 
influx and reflux of the tide, and was navigable, and was therefore jus 
publicum, or public property: but, if that were not so, they had acquired 
the right to use it by custom. The Plaintiff contended, however, that 
the tide had no perceptible effect upon the water in the north-western 
portion of the Fleet, and it was not navigable, being only two feet deep 
and thick with weeds, and he denied the alleged custom, as watchmen had 
been constantly employed by him to warn off people who came up that 
portion of the Fleet. The Earl of Ilchester and several witnesses gave 
evidence in support of the Plaintiff's case, and a great deal of documentary 
evidence extending back to a distant period was adduced to show that the 
Fleet and the Chesil Bank was part of the Abbotsbury estate. On the 
part of the Defendants, evidence was given to the effect that they did not 
fire off guns or disturb the swans on the occasion mentioned, and they 
submitted that they had been accustomed to use all parts of the Chesil 
Bank for fishing operations, and to pass over the whole of the Fleet; that 
the Fleet was navigable; that it was influenced by the tides from end to 
end, and that therefore it was an arm of the sea and open to the use of 
the public. At the conclusion of the arguments, his Lordship reserved 
judgment. Subsequently, in giving judgment, he reviewed the evi- 
dence at length, and the numerous authorities bearing on the subject, 
and said that the action was brought by the Plaintiff to restrain the 
Defendants from trespassing on the Chesil Bank and the waters of the 
Fleet west of the Abbotsbury stone, which he claimed as his property. 
The Defendants contended, however, that it was an arm of the sea, and 
was subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, and, being navigable, the public 
had a right to use it. On that point, his Lordship drew attention to the 
fact that witnesses had been called who had stated that the western portion 
of the Fleet was dry land at some periods, and therefore it could not be said 
