We find we were under a misapprehension as to the exact nature of the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench, to which we adverted the other day, in regard to the right of a farmer to plough up footpaths.
This right was certainly asserted in the case in question, but on particular, not general, grounds.  It appears that use and wont here told as much in favour of the farmer as the public;  he had been always in the habit of ploughing up the path in question when it suited his convenience, and the public, on the other hand, had equally enjoyed a right of way over it, whether ploughed or unploughed.
Under these circumstances, the court held that the two rights did not necessarily conflict, and that the public must be content simply with free passage over the land, without having the path kept up for their comfort and convenience.
...from "Pall Mall Gazette"