a  right  of  navigation  in  a  non-tidal  lake  ia  the  same  way
as  on  a  non-tidal  river.^

In  pools  and  small  non-navigable  lakes,  the  right  of  Pishing,
fishing  of  course  helongs  primd  facie  to  the  riparian  owners
ad  medium  filum  aquce.  It  seems  somewhat  doubtful,  how-
ever, whether  this  presumption  extends  to  large  navigable
lakes,  or  whether  a  public  right  of  fishery  may  not  exist
in  such  waters.  The  Irish  Court  of  Exchequer  Chamber
have  held,  in  the  case  of  Bloomfield  v.  Johnson,^  that  the
public  right  of  fishery  cannot  exist  ia  non-tidal  navigable
lakes ;  and  in  the  subsequent  case  of  Bristow  v.  Conniean,^
the  Irish  Court  of  Exchequer  held  that  they  were  bound
by  this  decision;    but  the  judges  in  this  case,  both  in

^  3  B.  &  S.  732.     See  also  Jieg.  Cormican,  3  App.  C.  641 ;  Marshall

V.    Barrow,    34  Justice   of    Peace,  v.  Ulleswater  Co.,  L.  R.,  7   Q.  B.
p.  53.  582  ;  azidpost,  Ch.  VII.
2  See  Marshall  v.  Ulhstoaier  Co.,  ^  Ir.  E.,  8  Ch.  68.
3  B.  &  S.  732;  BloomfeMY.  John-  ■>  Ir.  R.,  10  0.  L.  398,  412.
son,  Ir.  R.,  8  C.  L.  68  ;  Bristow  v.
Digitized  by  Microsoft®


102


OF    INLAND    WATERCOURSES.
the  Court  of  Exchequer  and  in  the  Court  of  Exchequer
Chamber,  strongly  dissented  from  this  view  of  the  law,
though  without  overruling  it.  The  case  went  to  the
House  of  Lords  on  another  ground ;  and  their  lordships,
though  not  deciding  the  point,  seem  douhtful  as  to  whether
the  decision  in  Bloomfield  v.  Johnson  could  be  supported.^


Ownership  of
soil  of.
Artificial  Watercourses.
