1833. 1827, replaced a part of the pavement, and the workmen of the Museum the rest, after the leave had been given by The Trustees of the committee to take up the pavement. It is rather remark BRIT. MUS. v. FINNIS. able, that the Trustees should have replaced a part, and the committee the rest; but, if part of the ground was theirs, that might be a reason for it. It is also proved that the servants of the Museum cleaned away the dirt and snow up to the termination of the small stones, and to that line only. The question is, whether, there being clearly an old highway adjoining the place in question, the Trustees of the British Museum ever dedicated this portion of land to the public. If there has been only a license, that is not sufficient, the question being, whether there has been a total dereliction on the part of the Trustees in favour of the public. Verdict for the plaintiffs-Damages 1s. (c). (c) In the case of the Rugby Charity v. Merryweather, 11 East, 376, Lord Kenyon said, that the public at large, having the free use of a way for five or six years, had been held a sufficient time to presume a dedication of it to the public, and that the fact of its not being a thoroughfare made no difference. And in the case of Rex v. Lloyd, 1 Cainp. 260, Lord Ellenborough appears to have been of opinion that it was not necessary that a way should be a thoroughfare. However, in the case of Wood v. Veal, 5 B. & A. 454, the Court appear to have great doubt whether it is not essential that it should be so. In that case the Court held, that there could be no dedication of a way exeept by the owner of the fee; in that case the user was during a long lease. In the case of Jurvis v. Dean, 3 Bing. 447; 11 Moo. 354, where persons had, for four or five years, passed up and down an unfinished street, the inhabitants of which paid highway and paving rates, Best, C. J., told the Jury, that if they thought the street had been used for years as a public thoroughfare, with the assent of the owners of the soil, they might presume a dedication. The Jury did so, and the Court refused a rule for a new trial. But, in the case of Harper v. Charlesworth, 6 D. & R. 572, where a way over crown land had been extinguished by an inclosure act, but the public had continued to use the way for twenty years afterwards; it was held, that this user was not evidence of a dedication of the way to the public, unless it appeared to have had the consent of the crown. In the case of Rex v. Campbell, S. G., applied to the learned Judge, to certify that the freehold came in question, to entitle the plaintiffs to their costs. Barr, 4 Camp. 16, Lord Ellenborough said, “After a long lapse of time and a frequent change of tenants, from the notorious and uninterrupted use of a way by the public, I should presume that the landlord had notice of the way being used, and that it was so used with his concurrence. Notice to the steward is notice to the landlord." In the case of Rex v. Lloyd, 1 Camp. 260, his Lordship said, "If the owner of the soil throws open a passage, and neither marks, by any visible distinction, that he means to preserve all his rights over it, nor excludes persons from passing through it by positive prohibition, he shall be presumed to have dedicated it to the public." But, in Roberts v. Karr, Id. 262, where a bar had been at first put up, which was soon knocked down, and the place after that used as a thoroughfare, Mr. Justice Heath observed, that the putting up of the bar rebutted the presumption of a dedication to the public; and that such a dedication must be made openly, and with a deliberate purpose. So, in Lethbridge v. Winter, Ib., where originally a gate had been put up, but which had been down for twelve years, it was held, that there was no dedication. In the case of Woodyer v. Hadden, 5 Taunt. 125, the plaintiff had erected a street leading out of a highway across his own close, and terminating at the edge of the defendant's adjoining close, which was separated from the end of the street for twentyone years, by the defendant's fence; during nineteen years of which period the houses were completed, and the street publicly watched, cleansed, and lighted, and both the footways and half the horseway thereof, paved at the expense of the inhabitants; held, that the street was not so dedicated to the public, that the defendant, pulling down his wall, might enter it at the end adjoining to his land, and use it as a highway. In the case of the Marquis of Stafford v. Coyney, 7 B. & C, 257, where the plaintiff had for several years suffered the public to use a road through his estate, for all purposes except that of carrying coal; it was held, that this was either a limited dedication of the road, or no dedication at all, but only a license, revocable, and that a person carrying coals along the road, after notice not to do so, was a trespasser. In this case, Mr. Justice Bayley and Mr. Justice Holroyd intimated that they saw no objection to there being a partial dedication of a way; but Mr. Justice Littledale doubted the possibility of making such a dedication. In the case of Roberts v. Karr, Mr. Justice Heath said, that there cannot be a partial dedication to the public, although there might be a grant of a footway only. 1833. The Trustees of v. FINNIS. 1833. The Trustees of v. FINNIS. PATTESON, J.-The freehold can hardly be said to come in question. Campbell, S. G.-But, for the private act of Parliament, the defendants must have pleaded a justification. PATTESON, J.-Perhaps I had better certify. Certificate granted. Campbell, S. G., and W. H. Watson, for the plaintiffs. F. Pollock, Platt, and Steer, for the defendants. Adjourned Sittings in London after Hilary BEFORE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE DENMAN. REX v. HEMP. Feb. 18th. If an indictment PERJURY.—The perjury was alleged to have been for perjury contain several assignments of perjury, on one of which no evi dence is given on the part of committed in an affidavit sworn in a cause of Moses Jacobs v. Green & Pellatt. This affidavit stated a conversation between the defendant Hemp and Moses Jacobs, and that a paper, marked B., contained the terms of a conthe prosecution, tract for the sale of pots; and that, on its being shewn by the defendant Hemp to Moses Jacobs, the latter admitted to the former, that this paper did contain the terms of the defendant cannot go into proof, to shew that the evi dence, charged by that assignment of perjury to be false, was in reality true. A witness for the defence cannot be asked whether he has heard a witness for the prosecution commit perjury on the trial of a cause; and in stating whether he would believe that witness on his oath, he must do so from his knowledge of the witness's general character, and not from having heard him give particular evidence on a particular trial. On the trial of an indictment for perjury, the witnesses to character were asked, "What is the character of the defendant for veracity and honour?" and "Do you consider him a man likely to commit perjury?" that contract. There were assignments of perjury on the whole of these statements; but no evidence was given on the part of the prosecution in support of that assignment of perjury, which charged that the paper marked B. did not contain the terms of the contract. The defendant's counsel proposed to give evidence to shew that the paper did, in fact, contain the terms of the contract. Campbell, S. G.-I do not go upon that assignment of perjury. I have given no evidence upon it. Platt, for the defendant.-It is a question on the record, and we may give evidence to disprove it. DENMAN, C. J.-I think not, as the prosecutor gives no evidence upon it. On the part of the prosecution, Moses Jacobs had been examined as a witness; and for the defence, Mr. Pellat was called, he was asked by— Platt, for the defendant, whether, from having heard Moses Jacobs give false evidence on the trial of a former cause, he considered that the testimony of Jacobs could be relied on? DENMAN, C. J.-The question is, from what you know of the general character of Jacobs, would you believe him on his oath? Mr. Pellatt. I do not know enough of his general character to speak to that. Platt. Did you ever hear him commit perjury? Campbell, S. G.-I must object to that. 1833. REX v. HEMP. 1833. REX บ. HEMP. DENMAN, C. J.-That question cannot be put, as it would be trying another specific charge. A Juror. I should like for Mr. Pellatt to state whether he would not believe the witness because he has heard him commit perjury. DENMAN, C. J.-It must be from his general character. Mr. Pellatt. I have not such a knowledge of his general character as to enable me to answer the question; but what I do know of him is not in his favour. For the defendant, several witnesses to character were examined. They were each asked, "What is the general character of the defendant for veracity and honour?" And also, "Do you consider him a man likely to commit perjury?" The form of the last question was neither objected to by the Solicitor-General, nor remarked on by the Lord Chief Justice. Verdict-Not guilty. Campbell, S. G., and Hutchinson, for the prosecution. Curwood and Platt, for the defendant. [Attornies-Spyers, and E. Isaacs.] See the case of Rex v. Bispham, ante, Vol. 4, p. 392, and Rex v. Nichols, post. |