though sweeping the church and tolling the bell is (d); charities are within the Act though protected by sect. 25 (e). (d) Doe v. Benham, 7 Q. B. 976. (e) Magdalen College v. A.-G., supra; A.-G. v. Davey, supra. ACTUAL possession of the land (a), or receipt of the Possession. rents thereof (b), is prima facie evidence of seisin in fee, and is sufficient to maintain an action of ejectment; but this presumption may be rebutted by proof of title in someone else (bb). The sum received as rent may, however, be so small as to raise the presumption that it is merely a quit-rent (c). The receipt of the rents can be Receipt of shown by the production of receipts for rent which were (a) Peaceable V. Watson, 4 Taunt. 16; Doe v. Dyball, M. & M. 346; Doe v. Barnard, 13 Q. B. 945; Doe v. Penfold, 8 C. & P. 536; Asher v. Whitlock, L. R. 1 Q. B. 1, in which case Dixon v. Gayfore, 17 Beav. 421, was commented on. (b) Jayne v. Price, 5 Taunt. 326; Daintry v. Brocklehurst, 3 346. (bb) Doe v. Barnard, supra. rent. Acts of ownership. Declarations and admissions. in the custody of a deceased occupier (d), by entries made in the ordinary course of business by a deceased agent or someone else on his behalf, if signed by him (e), or by admissions of payment by an occupier (f). Payment of rent under a lease is prima facie evidence of title to the leasehold interest (g). The title to property may also by shown by evidence of unequivocal acts of ownership exercised over it, such as granting leases (h), which may be proved by production of the lessor's counterpart (i); cutting wood and felling timber (k); building upon the land or doing or paying for repairs (l); perambulating the land (m); or, in the case of a manor, holding courts and appointing keepers (n). Merely shooting over land or appointing keepers (o), or being assessed to the land tax (p), is not evidence of ownership of the land. When acts of ownership are exercised upon or in reference to land which is not the actual part in dispute it must be shown that the locus in quo and the land in dispute are part of one entire estate or district (q). The declarations or admissions of a deceased occupier or owner (r), whether verbal or written, as to the ownership of the land which he occupied, are admissible evidence for all purposes against all persons (s), and the admissions of an occupier, who is alive, are admissible evidence against any person who claims in respect of the same interest as the occupier who made the admission (t). Admissions of a tenant are not, however, admissible evidence to derogate from his landlord's rights (u). It must be shown that the person, whose declarations or admissions are sought to be proved, was in possession of the property to which the declaration or admission relates (x), and when necessary, that he is dead, not merely seriously ill (y). evidence. The ownership of land may also be proved by documen- Documentary tary evidence, such as title deeds, or secondary evidence thereof when admissible; and by evidence of the mode in which the property has been enjoyed (2). A demise, grant or gift of property prima facie passes Parcel or no parcel. everything that belongs to it, though whether particular premises are or are not parcel of such property is a question of fact (a). The rule is that if a sufficient description of (r) Doe v. Coulthred, 7 A. & E. 235; Gery v. Redman, 1 Q. B. D. 161. (s) Peaceable v. Watson, 4 Taunt. 16; Crease v. Barrett, 1 C. M. & R. 919, 931; Doe v. Arkwright, 5 C. & P. 575; Mountnoy v. Collier, 1 E. & B. 630, 640; Davies v. Pierce, 2 T. R. 53; Doe v. Langfield, 16 M. & W. 497, 514; R. v. Birmingham, 1 B. & S. 763; R. v. Exeter, L. R. 4 Q. B. 341; Carne v. Nicoll, 1 B. N. C. 430; Sly v. Sly, 2 P. D. 91; Higham v. Ridgway, 2 S. L. C. p. 370 (ed. 9). (t) Woolway v. Rowe, 1 A. & E. 114. (u) R. v. Bliss, 7 A. & E. 550; Papendick v. Bridgwater, 24 L. J. Q. B. 289. (x) Peaceable V. Watson, 4 Taunt. 16; Doe v. Cartwright, 1 C. & P. 218. (y) Harrison v. Blades, 3 Camp. 457. (*) Doe v. Jordan, 4 C. & P. 146. (a) Doe v. Burt, 1 T. R. 701; Brown v. Armstrong, 7 Ir. Rep. C. L. 130; Manning v. Fitzgerald, 29 L. J. Ex. 24; Francis Service of. the premises is set out, a falsa demonstratio will be rejected, but if the premises are described in general terms, and a particular description is added, the latter controls the former (b). If words are ambiguous or indeterminate they may be explained by parol (c), and evidence is admissible to prove the state and condition and the local names of the property demised, granted, or given (d); and any collateral facts may be proved from which the intention of the parties to include certain premises can be gathered (e), though the intention itself may not be given in evidence (f). Such collateral facts are, that the land was in the occupation of a certain person (g), or was staked out (h). 2. Notice to Quit. A notice to quit may be verbal or in writing (i); if in writing, the contents may be proved by a copy without giving notice to produce the original (k); if there was an attesting witness he need not be called (7). Service of a notice to quit can be proved by a memorandum of service indorsed upon it in the ordinary course of business by the person who served it, if he is dead (m); v. Hayward, 22 Ch. D. 177; (b) Doe v. Galloway, 5 B. & Ad. (c) Paddock v. Fradley, 1 Cr. & Jer. 90; Dyne v. Nutley, 14 C. B. 122. (d) Doe v. Burt, 1 T. R. 701; Doe v. Hubbard, 15 Q. B. 227, 244; Waterpark v. Fennell, 7 H. L. C. 650. |