VILLAGE GREENS. 301 
the pastimes were allowed for the necessary recreation 
of the inhabitants, but the case in Levinz decides 
that it is necessary for the inhabitants to have such 
recreation; if so it is matter of law.” But this 
case, while it confirmed the previous decision, also laid 
down that a claim which was set up for a similar custom, 
averring the right to be in “all persons for the time 
being in the said parish,’ was as clearly bad as the 
other claim was good. ‘‘ How that which may be 
claimed by all the inhabitants of England,”’ said Mr. 
Justice Buller, “can be the subject of a custom, I 
cannot conceive. Customs must be in their nature con- 
fined to individuals of a particular description, and what 
is common to all mankind can never be claimed as a 
custom.” * 
The distinction between a class of persons, or the 
inhabitants of a district, and the public generally, was 
clearly brought out in two cases with regard to race- 
courses. In the one, a custom for all the freemen and 
citizens of the city of Carlisle to hold horse-races over 
the close of Kingsmoor on Ascension Day in every year 
was held good.+ In the other, the trustees of New- 
market Heath had warned off the course a gentleman, 
who had made a violent attack on their conduct. He 
refused to leave, and an action at law was brought, to 
which he pleaded an immemorial custom on the part of 
the public to go and see the races held at Newmarket. 
The judges decided that the custom having been laid 
* Fitch v. Rawlings.—2, H. Bl. 393. 
+ Mounsey v. Ismay.—1863, 34, L.J., Ex. 52. 
