COULSDON COMMONS. Wr 
satisfied that one of the Messrs. Hall had proved his 
case. In the course of his judgment he said—* 
“The law I take it to be that the Lord of the Manor may 
take gravel waste, loam, and the like, in the waste, so long as he 
does not infringe upon the Commoners’ rights. His right to 
do sois quite independent of the right of approvement under the 
Statute of Merton or at common law, and exists by reason of 
his ownership of the soil, subject only to the interests of the 
Commoners. Judge Bayley, in ‘ Arlett v. Ellis,’ said that 
the lord has rights of his own reserved upon the waste—I do not 
say subservient to, but concurrent with the rights of Commoners. 
And when it is ascertained that there is more Common than 
is necessary for the cattle of the Commoners, the lord, as 
it seems to me, is entitled to take that for his own use.” 
He went on to say that in the case of gravel dig- 
ging, the “ onus probandi”’ that it interfered with the 
right of common, rested with the Commoner, and not, as 
in the case of approvement, with the Lord of the 
Manor. He gave, however, an injuncticn to restrain 
Mr. Byron from making inclosures, and from carry- 
ing away or destroying the loam and gravel of the 
waste, or the pasture or herbage growing thereon, 
so as in any manner to prevent, disturb, or interfere 
with the exercise by Mr. Hall, or the other persons 
entitled, of these rights over the waste lands of the 
Manor. 
The Judge also found against the attempted restric- 
tion of rights of common to particular Commons of the 
Manor, holding that the arrangements of this character 
* Hall v. Byron, L.R. 4. Ch. Div., 667. 
M 
