carry and Buckhurst franchise of Westminster case for infringe the liberty of  the bailiff of Westminster defendant demurrer to the declaration the chief  exception be that the plaintiff have not show any title to the franchise which  be against common right ought to be by grant and can t be by prescription and  be not like the case of a market which may well be by prescription holt pro to  ward off the plaintiff have not show that there be such a franchise which have  the return of writ quoad I cro there a sufficient title be show be to run to  become used quoad I cro there a seize in fee be allege of a mill which be a  good title so in cro and dent and Oliver S case but where a man claim a  franchise or liberty in gross it can t be by prescription Inst it S agree that  a bare possession allege of one thing appertinent to another be sufficient  otherwise of a thing that lie in grant and be in gross No title be make    FoxLev S case and the abbot de Strata Marcelia a man may prescribe to hold  plead but not to have conusance of plead because that exclude other in all  possessory action where the declaration be for the infringement of a liberty c  a title ought to be show in the writ Fitzherbert nat Br Reg this be a  incorporeal inheritance occupation can t be gain by possession latch Stanhope  S case pollexfen pro quer it be impossible in many case to show a title by  reason of length of time and many mean conveyance the case of sir Robert  Atkins and Holford in the exchequer be adjudge in point as to Fitzherbert nat  Br d that be answer in f there Powell justice it be move again boundary  michaelis doubt and say that dent and Oliver S case sand and Trefuses case and  the case in cro be authority for a title ought to be show with a difference  where the thing be appendant Comberbach and where in gross which be not very  clear and in placita reused a title be set forth but by the opinion of the c I  as also of Holloway and Allibone judgement be give for the plaintiff mich  James