(a)  Next  term,  Temple  moved
in  the  Exch.,  bat  the  Court,  after
taking  time  to  consider,  refused
a  rule.  They  were  at  first  dis-
posed to  doubt  whether  there  was
not  a  question  of  fact  for  the
jury,  but  ultimately  the  Court
arrived  at  the  conclusion  that  there
was  no  substantial  evidence  of
reputed  ownership  to  require  that
it  should  be  left  to  the  jury ;  for


that  the  very  evidence  which
showed  the  continued  possession
by  the  assignor,  showed  that  the
creditors  knew  the  real  ownership ;
and  there  was  no  evidence  that
any  one  was  not  aware  of  it,  and  if
they  had  found  for  the  plaintiff  it
would  have  been  a  wrong  verdict
See  Graham  v.  Furber,  24  L.  J.,
C.  P.  85 ;  and  see  also  Bridget  v.
Whitehoute,  29  L.  J.,  Q.  B.  73.
670


CASES  ON  TUB


1MI.
WESTERN  CIRCUIT  (a).
The  use  of  a
public  footway
includes  that
of  a  peram-
bulator as  a
usual  accom-
paniment of  a
large  class  of
foot  passen-
gers, if  of
a  size  and
weight  not  to
inconvenience
other  passen-
gers, and  not
to  injure  the
soil.
Whether
under  the  cir-
cumstances
the  use  of  such
a  vehicle  be
justifiable  is
a  question  of
fact  for  the
jury.
One  of  the
public  has  no
right  to  re-
move an  en-
cumbrance to
the  soil  of  a
highway  un-
less it  be  also
a  nuisance  to
the  way.
The  owner
of  the  soil  of
a  highway  may
remove  any-
thing thereon
not  justified
by  the  ease-
ment though
not  a  nuisance
to  the  way.
Bristol,  coram  Bylet,  J.
REGINA  v.  MATH  IAS.
Indictment  for  an  assault

Plea:  not  guilty.
