BANSTEAD COMMONS. 203 
Commoners. Where the right to the land of a 
Common is challenged by the Lord of the Manor, by 
inclosure under the Statute of Merton, it is well recog- 
nised by the Courts, upon the construction of the 
Statute, that the onus of proof that sufficiency of 
common is left for the remaining rights of other 
persons, rests with the Lord of the Manor who incloses. 
But when the question in dispute is the right to more 
or less digging of loam, or cutting of turf, it is equally 
well established by law that the onus of proof, that 
the acts of the lord constitute an injury to the 
Commoners’ rights, is thrown upon the Commoners 
themselves. This was a much more difficult task for 
the Plaintiffs in the Banstead case, for it necessitated 
their proving exactly the number of persons entitled 
to rights, and showing that the paring of turf and 
digging of loam, as carried out by the Lord of the 
‘Manor, was such as to interfere substantially with 
their rights of common, and that the Commons in 
their impaired condition could not support cattle which 
might be kept on the land by the Commoners during 
the winter months. 
Upon the Commoners of Banstead, therefore, the 
onus rested to establish in their suit against the 
mortgagees that there were still in existence mghts, 
in respect of an acreage of land so large that the 
Commons, in their existing conditions with their 
surface injured by the cutting of turf and digging 
‘of loam, could not produce food enough for the cattle 
which might be kept upon such lands. For this 
