An Autobiography of an Ancient Athlete & Antiquarian

AUTOBIOGRAPHY public right of way across the Broad, but against us as to shooting and fishing. The shooting I bad advised against from the beginning, bnt the latter which turned on whether or not there was a tide we ought to have won. We appealed, and the appeal was heard on the 9th February, 1893, but the court, of whom Kay and Lindley were curiously enough both Norfolk residents, decided against us, and called it a most hopeless appeal. Our Cotmsel (Mr. now Sir M. Shearman) and I were as sure as could be of winning for the reasons I afterwards set out in a pam– phlet I published, and which I summarize below. Our main points on appeal were that the Allotment Act, which the "broad owner" relied on, did not and could not allot the open part of a navigable river. It speaks of the land being allotted as being land ''frequently'' overflowed with water, whereas the Broad is permanently covered with river, and it directs a dyke to be made through the lands "directed to be divided and allotted " to the com1non river or Broad adjoining thereto, which shows as plainly as words can say that the Broad itself was not intended to be allotted. Besides, these two absolutely conclusive reasons (1) It gives as a reason for tbe enclosure that the lands were for want of sufficient drainage yielding but little profit, and yet the Award allots a Broad that could not in the nature of things ever be drained, it being the natural drainage pkce for the adjoin– ing country, and moreover being under the jurisdiction as a part of the king'· river, of the Yarmouth Port and Haven Commission from (::arly times, to extinguish which and the public navigation rights, a Public General Act would have been nece ·sary. (2) It states that the allotted land is to be enclosed within a limited time after allotment; but the allotted part of the Broad of course never could have been enclosed and divided from the rest of it, especially not by a ditch dug across it, which was what the Act directed Yet in the face of these very strong and all self– consistent proofs that the legislature never intended to authorize the enclosure of the Broad, any one of which I should have thought would have been sufficient, the Court of Appeal talked of the defendant (I) straining the meaning of one section of the Act. Had they talked of the Award Commissioners driving a coach and horses through the whole Act, it would have been nearer the facts.