296 ROADSIDE WASTES. 
a decree without contest in the Courts, and we had the 
satisfaction of seeing him remove his beautiful wall and 
re-erect it on its proper site, at his own cost, instead of 
at ours. So angry was he, however, that he subse- 
quently ploughed up the strip of land which he was 
forced to throw out. Process was then taken before 
the magistrates at Maidenhead, and this foolish and 
ul-tempered attempt to annoy the public was visited 
with an appropriate sentence. 
This vindication of the public rights put an end 
to the encroachments on roadside wastes in that 
district. We felt, however, that we had only 
performed a duty, which ought to have been under- 
taken by the local authority of the district, on behalf 
of the public. The difficulty consisted not in the law, 
but in the absence of a local authority interested, on 
behalf of the public, in enforcing it, in the ignorance 
of the law on the part of the highway authorities, and 
in the want of summary means for enforcing it. The 
law already gives a summary remedy by penalty, in the 
case of any obstruction within fifteen feet of the centre 
of the highway, and most highway boards are under 
the impression that this is a legal definition of the 
width of the road, and that adjoining owners are 
entitled to advance their fences up to this point, so 
as to inclose the roadside waste. This, however, is a 
distinct error, and although there is no summary 
remedy outside the limit of fifteen feet, yet it is clear 
that the public are entitled to the use of the land 
beyond, which is within the definition of a roadside 
