Mr.  BetheU  in  reply.  First,  the  Defendants  haye
pleaded  issuably;  they  haye  pleaded  a  common  law
prescriptiye  title  in  the  usual  form ;  but,  if  they  hayq
not,  they  alone  will  sufier  by  it  at  the  hearing.  *^  It  is
at  the  peril  of  the  Defendant,  if  his  pleadings  are
defectiye  in  this  respect ;  but  this  is  quite  independent
of  the  law  of  discoyery.*' (e)  It  is  the  essence  of  a
prescriptiye  title  to  rely  on  the  immemorial  usage :  to
rely  on  written  documents,  would  at  once  destroy  it

Secondly.  As  to  the  alleged  fiduciary  relation.  The
office  of  conseryator  is  not  like  that  of  a  bailiff  account-
able to  his  principal.  The  duties  are  performed  by  the
Mayor,  and  not  by  the  Corporation  aggregate.      The

Defendants

{a)  8  Beavan,  270.  (<0  ^-  C.  Jufy  15th,  1840.
(b)  \5  Mee.  ^  W.  687.  (e)  WigramonDkeovefy.^SS.
(c)  Ibid.  97.  (8d  ed.)


CASES  IN  CHANCEBY.
2S


Defendants  have  given  all  the  necesaaty  dUcovery  in
respect  of  that  relation ;  but  the  right  of  the  Crown  to
discovery  in  respect  of  the  conservancy,  gives  no  right
of  discovery  as  to  the  independent  title  of  the  City  to
the  soil  of  the  river.  If  A.  B.  were  owner  in  fee  of
an  estate,  and  trustee  for  C7.  D.  of  a  rent  charge  issuing
out  of  it,  C.  D.  could  not  maintain  a  suit  to  discover
A.  B.*B  title  to  the  fee,  or  insist  on  any  discovery  uUra
the  rent  charge.
1849.
The

Attornky-

Gbnkral.
V,

The
GorporatioD
of  London.
