The  first  three  of  these  are  not  incidents  to  the  possession
of  the  soil,  but  exist  independently  as  franchises  or  pre-
rogative rights  of  the  Crown,  and  cannot,  according  to
Phear,^  be  adduced  as  evidence  of  title  to  the  shore ;  this
statement,  however,  would  appear  to  require  some  modifi-
cation, as  in  the  case  of  Dickens  v.  Shaw,^  though  it  was
held  that  the  right  of  the  lord  of  a  manor  to  take  wreck
was  not  sufficient  alone  to  confer  a  title  on  him  by  pre-
sumption of  law  to  the  ownership  of  the  soil,  yet  the  Court
was  clearly  of  opinion  that  it  might  be  evidence  of  such
ownership,  particularly  if  coupled  with  other  acts  of  en-
joyment.
With  regard  to  the  ownership  of  a  several  or  exclusive
right  of  fishery,  as  giving  a  right  to  the  soil  of  the  sea
shore,  in  the  case  of  The  Duke  of  Somerset  v.  Fogwell,^  the

1  Page  89.  pendix,  45.
2  Hall  on  the  Sea  Shore,  Ap-  =  5  B.  &  C.  375 ;  see  also  Scratten


Digitized  by  Microsoft®


and  derelic-
tion.
22  OF    THE    SEA,    AND    RIGHTS   THEREIN.
Court  seemed  to  be  of  opinion,  that  though  the  owner  of  a
several  fishery  in  tidal  waters  may,  in  an  ordinary  case,  be
presumed  to  be  the  owner  of  the  soil,  as  in  the  case  of
non-tidal  water,  yet  that  a  grant  of  such  a  fishery  does
not  necessarily  import  the  ownership  of  the  soil.  The
ownership  of  such  a  fishery  would,  therefore,  seem  to  be
some  evidence,  though  not  conclusive  evidence,  of  the
ownership  of  the  shore.
