Title No. 2763, the argument of counsel for Dillingers is to the effect that the elements essential to the acquisition of an easement by prescription *780 were not established by the District; and that because the condemnation suit indicated the purpose for which the land was to be used following condemnation thereof as "a part of the inlet canal," the District is bound by that declaration and in 1948 abandoned any easement that it might therefore have acquired by the construction of the ditch across the pond area. With reference to the registered land, in addition to the above, it is contended that no rights ever were acquired by the District in that tract, due to the express provisions of the statute under which the registration of the§§ 201 et seq., against Willard Richman, individually, and Richman-Anderson, a corporation trading as the Tower View Cafe.  He alleged that defendants violated the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d), by paying the female cooks at the Tower View Cafe less than they paid the lone male cook, Orrin Hanson, for work that was equal within the meaning of the Act.  The Secretary sought to enjoin defendants from violating the Act and to restrain them from withholding unpaid wages due the women as a result of the violations.1  Following a non-jury trial, the District Court2 ordered the complaint dismissed, finding the Secretary had failed to meet his burden of showing that the work performed by the women was equal within the meaning of the