In  the  case  of  Murphy  v.  Rijan^  in  which  an  action  was
brought  for  trespass  to  a  fishery  in  the  non-tidal  part  of
a  navigable  river,  and  defendant  pleaded  that  the  river
was  a  royal  river,  and  the  right  of  fishery  was  in  the
public,  on  demurrer  to  this  plea,  O'Hagan,  J.,  delivering
the  judgment  of  the  Court,  held  that  above  the  fiux  and
reflux  of  the  tide,  the  soil  and  fishing  of  rivers  was  vested
prima  facie  in  the  riparian  owners,  and  not  in  the  Crown
and  the  public,  and  this  none  the  less  because  the  river
was  navigable,  and  had  been  immemorially  navigated  for
commercial  and  other  purposes.
In  Hargreaves  v.Diddams,^  and  Ifusset  v.  Biirch,^  the  Court
of  Queen's  Bench  have  held,  that  v/here  a  river  above  the
tide  is  made  navigable  by  Act  of  Parliament,  which  does
not  expressly  touch  the  rights  of  the  riparian  owners,  none
of  the  incidents  attaching  to  a  navigable  river,  up  to  the
flow  and  reflow  of  the  tide,  can  properly  attach ;  and  that,
therefore,  a  claim  by  one  of  the  public  to  fish  there  cannot
exist  in  law.
1  See  Ilouck,  p.  26 ;  AngeU  on  App.  C.  662.
■Watercourses,  c.  13,  and  per  Dowse,  ^  Ir.  E.,  2  C.  L.  143.
B.,  in  Bristoit-e  v.  Cormican,  Ir.  R.,  ^  L,  jj,^  lo  Q.  B.  527.
10  0.  L.  68;  and  per  Lord  Hather-  *  35  L.  T.,  N.  S.  486  ;  see  also

ley  in  Lyon  v.  Fishmongers'  Co.,  1  Hudson  v.  McMae,  4  B.  &  S.  585.
Digitized  by  Microsoft®


60


or    INLAND   WATERCOURSES.
What  is
evidence  that
a  river  is
navigable.
