Digitized  by  Microsoft®


FISHERY    IN   PRIVATE    STREAMS.  365

bound  by  tbe  case  of  Holford  v.  Bailey,  was  himself
of  a  difEerent  opinion.  After  citing  the  opinion  of  Lord
Coke,  to  the  effect  that  a  grant  of  a  several  fishery  does
not  pass  the  soil,  he  proceeds :  ^  "  Now,  independently  of
"  the  high  authority  of  Lord  Coke  on  such  a  matter,  I
"  must  say  that  this  doctrine  appears  to  me  the  only  one
"  which  is  reconcileable  with  principle  or  reason.  It  is
"  admitted  on  all  hands  that  a  several  fishery  may  exist
"  independently  of  the  ownership  of  the  soil  in  the  bed  of
"  the  water.  Why  then  should  such  a  fishery  be  considered
"  as  carrying  with  it,  in  the  absence  of  negative  proof,  the
"  property  in  the  soil  ?  On  the  contrary,  it  seems  to  me
"  that  there  is  every  reason  for  holding  the  opposite  way.
