Circumstances in which held that for the purpose of establishing by prescriptive use a public right-of-way from one highway to another, which use did not extend to the full prescriptive period, it was right to take into consideration the earlier use of a way between the two highways, although such way began and finished at different points and followed throughout a different line.
Evidence held sufficient to establish by prescriptive use a right-of-way for foot-passengers where the use was that chiefly of tenants, but where little more could be looked for.
Observations (per the Lord Chancellor) on the preponderant weight to be given to the opinion of the Judge of First Instance where the question came to rest on oral evidence.
Held (per Lord Ordinary, Salvesen) that inquiry should be by proof and not by jury trial in an action as to the existence through prescriptive use of a public right-of-way, in which arose the question whether and to what extent there could be taken into account use, at an earlier period, of an entirely different line of passage.
Citations:
[1910] UKHL 356, 47 SLR 356
Links:
Jurisdiction:
Scotland
Land
Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.619806
