82 PLUMSTEAD COMMONS. 
inter se, are entitled to join in attacking the common enemy in 
respect of their common right.” 
He repudiated the suggestion that the Plaintiffs had 
lost their rights by neglecting to claim admission or to 
pay quit rents. He concluded his judgment by these 
weighty words :— 
“The Defendants must pay the costs of the suit. The 
litigation has been occasioned by a high-handed assertion of rights 
on the part of the College, who really seem to have said in effect 
to those who have been exercising these rights for two hundred 
years: ‘You will be in a difficulty to prove how you have 
exercised them ; we will put you to that proof by inclosing and 
taking possession of your property.’ I think, therefore, that 
the whole expense ought to fall upon those who have occasioned 
it: namely, those who have brought into question rights which 
have had so long a duration, and to which I am glad to be able 
to discover—because it is the duty of the Court to discover, if 
it can—a legal origin.” * 
It will be observed that this judgment decided 
several points in advance of those in the Berkhamsted 
case, and was of the utmost value in subsequent cases. 
It laid down the following propositions :— 
1. That one freehold tenant of a Manor (claiming 
by prescription, on a presumed grant) can sue on behalf 
of himself and all the other freehold tenants. 
2. Where rights of common have been exercised 
for many years the Court will endeavour to find a legal 
origin for them. 
3. Where rights of common have been exercised 
* Warrick v. Queen’s College, Oxford, L.R. 10, Eq. 105, 7 Ch., 716. 
