PG 16 EVIDENCE 9 3: Documents Uncoloured roads on 1910 maps

Pages 153 - 158 David Braham Q.C, private roads and, given local knowledge, may be confidently identified as private The relevance of The deductions allowed for tbe existence roads.> The relatively modest number of apparent omissions ofpublic rights ofway in arriving at the roads in this category reflects the fact that from the valuations made under the valuations required by the Finance (/909-10) many estate roads and private drives leading Finance (1909-10) Acr1910 can be highly relevant where highway 10 substantial country houses or farmhouses Act 1910 status is in issue. I The marked up maps can which are now fenced roads were still also be highly relevant where they show that a uofenced in the 191Os. road running between inclosures wasomitted from the valuations. This article examines the The Finance Act maps show which of the implications ofsuch omissions with particular fenced roads were omitted from the valuation . reference 10 two unreported High Court cases On the working sheets, distinctive colours in which those implications were considered. were used to distinguish each area which had Both those cases also involved consideration been treated as a separate unit of valuation, ofthe weight to be given to the manner in but those fenced roads which were omitted which a road is shown in a map and from the valuation were left uncoloured on apportionment. the working sheets, and appear as uncoloured spaces between the coloured boundaries shown on the record plans . Accordingly such S.26 of the Finance (1909-10) ACt 1910 ('the unvalued stretches of road will be referred I See RWLR s.9.3 1910 Act ') required the Commissioners of to as 'uncoloured roads'.' 1'1'.17-20. 'Can be highly to cause a valuation to be relevant' reflects the fact made of "all laod in the " to The significance of such omissions has been lhat it is often difficult to determine the values referred to in the Act. considered in two unreported cases in the High establish the link between The valuation process is described in Rights Court,S In Maltbridge Island Management the deduction and the of way & the 1910 Finance Act2 and, as Company v. Secretary of State for the route whose status is inissue. mentioned in that article, the surviving Environment and Hertfordshire County material includes 1:2500 Ordnance Survey Council" their significance was considered 2 Supra note 1 . plans which had been marked up so as to by Sullivan J., as he then was, in the context identify the various units of valuation ('the of a successful application to quash an 3 Mr. Peter Millman, Finance Act maps'). This legislation was Inspector's confirmation, with amendments, Rights of Way Officer, repealed by the Finance Act 1920. The of a defmitive map modification order adding Hertfordshire County valuation work was delayed by the reduction a byway open to all traffic to the Hertfordshire Council, has kindly drawn my attention to in the available manpower during the 1914-18 Definitive Map. In Robinson Webster examples in war, and in some areas the work was never (Holdings) Ltd. v. Agombar and Agombar? Hertfordshire whose completed. Nevertheless, it is clear that ('Agombar') their significance was considered status is known. numerous roads were deliberately omitted by Ethenon J. in the context of an action for from the valuation process. a declaration that the defendants had no right • In areas where the to use a particular lane in Wiltshire, apart rluations were not In areas where the valuation work was from a private right to use the lane for one J completed, this description only applies completed, all the omitted roads were either specific limited purpose. The defendants to those uncoloured stretches of road which ran between succeeded on the grouod that the lane was roads which had inclosures, 'fenced roads', or roads in built· a public carriageway. coloured plots on up areas. The valuations and deductions either side. required by the Act were duly made where The Mallbridge case an unfenced stretch of highway crossed a Mahbridge concerned a road called Mill Lane S These are the only larger area which had to be valued anyway. which originally led only to a riverside mill, unreported cases on the In such cases the larger area, such as a field but which was connected to the towpath on the point of which the author is aware. or private park, was valued and a deduction opposite bank of the river by a further stretch was made in respect of the public right of of road and an iron bridge when the river was 6 [1998] EWHC Admin way : that was so even if other stretches of made navigable under an ACtpassed in 1766. 820 (31 July 1998). A the same highway were fenced roads which The whole route, including both Mill Lane transcript is available at were omitted from the valuation. and the iron bridge, was shown as an http://www.bailii.org/ uncoloured road 00 the Finance Act map. ew/easeslEWHC/Admin! I998/820.html Some fenced roads were included in the valuation even if they were shown as separate In Maltbridge there was strong evidence of 7 Unreported, judgment OS plots on the I :2500 Ordnance Survey public use of the road and the bridge as a delivered by Etherton J. plans . The fenced roads which were included through route by peopleon foot, and Sullivan J. 00 9 April 200I. in the valuation generally appear to be observed that there was ample material to

Rights of Way Law Review May 2002 Section 9.3 Page 153 suppon a decision that there was a public right presumed to be a public highway. Instead, he of way on foot along the road and bridge. relied on the fact that the significance of that The Inspector's decision letter referred to deduction had been addressed by the Inspector the fact that some witnesses who dealt with and by Mr. Millman, and contended success­ use of the Jane by people on foot "spoke fully that the Inspector was entitled to accept of public use of it by their families going Mr. Millman's explanation and conclude back ISO years". However, what was in issue that the Finance Act material had some was a decision that the whole of the route was corroborative value. However, Sullivan J. did a byway open to all traffic, and Sullivan J. not consider that the indications afforded by concluded that: the tithe map and the Finance Act material a) the evidence of the bridge being used outweighed the indications afforded by the with carts and with horses was consistent private documents. with the private use of the iron bridge as an accommodation bridge, for the use of the In pan the decision in Mal/bridge turned ownersofJandoneitherbankoftheriver;8 and on the terms of the 1766 Local Act , but b) "One would naturally except substantial Sullivan J. 's approach to the tithe map, vehicular traffic to and from a mill. Such discussed below, and the Finance Act material traffic would be equally consistent with a is of wider interest, So, too, is the evideoce private carriageway". of Mr. Millman who was called as a witness at the local inquiry. Hence, he disagreed with the Inspector's approach to the evidence of use with horses Instruction to Valuers No,S60 and with horse-drawn carts. On that view, Mr. Millman referred to the common practice byway status depended on whether the ofomitting certain roads from the Finance Act documentary evidence showed that it was valuations; the apparent correlation between more probable than not that Mill Lane the omitted roads and known highways; and 8 S.13 of the 1766 Act had authorised the was a public carriage road. the fact that some omitted roads were evidently undertakers to construct not carriage roads. He also referred to an such bridges over the In Malsbtidge, the tithe map seemed to point Instruction to Valuers (No.560), issued by new cuts "as shall be to public carriage road status and the 1910 the Chief Valuer on 28 February 1911 proper for the use of the FmanceAct material appeared to corroborate 'By order of the Board', which sheds some occupiers of the lands the tithe map. Against that, at various dates light on the practice. to The Instruction is thereunto adjoining" . between 1814 and 1981 conveyances and headed "Deduction of value allributable to 9 Sullivan J. duly taelded leases of the properties abutting the road had appropriation ofland for Streets" and reads the point that he could clearly proceeded on the basis that the cost of as follows: not simply substitute his maintaining the road fell to be borne by the "In normal cases the ownership of land own opinion on the proprietors of those properties in defined abutting upon a road carries with it the weight of the user proportions. Sullivan J. accepted that the ownership of half the adjoining roadway, evidence and Inspector was entitled to place some weight subject to the rights of the public, and in such documentary evidenc­ on the tithe map and the Finance Act cases the unit of valuation is the land abutting for that of the Inspectl ) material but, differing from the Inspector, he the roadway plus halfthe site ofsuch roadway 10 I am indebted to concluded that the documentary evidence as and, under such circumstances, no deduction Mr Millman for the a whole was neutral.9 falls to be made under Section 25(4)(C)1I informatioD that because there is no pan of the site value (1) this was the only The position in Maltbridge was complicated of the whole proved to be directly attributable instruction that be found by the fact that a deduction for a right of way to the appropriation of land for the purposes which dealt with the had been made in valuing one of the plots of the street. omission of the adjoining Mill Lane. On one interpretation uncoloured roads although he spent a that deduction was more consistent with the "Although the unit ofvaluation includes half wholeday in the Inland view that the roadway was regarded as a the site of the adjoining roadway the area Revenue Library, where private road as respects vehicular traffic, but recorded on the record planshould continue to the Instructions were on another interpretation it was consistent beexclusive ofthesite ofthe external roadways then held: and with the view that the road was regarded as a and the area to be included in the Valuation (2) according to an public carriage road at the time. In those Book should be computed accordingly. earlier Instruction circumstances Counsel for the Secretary of (No. 157)all land in the district was to be State conceded that it would have been wrong "In any case where, having regard to local recorded OD the plans. for the Inspector to approach the Finance Act custom, it is usual to compute the area by material on the generalised basis that if the including a portion of the size of external II S.25(4)(c) of lbe way is shown uncoloured on the map it may be roadways, upon the demand of any owner a 1910 Act.

Rights of Way Law Review May 2002 Section 9.3 Page 154 statement may be made in the "Remarks" which is .. . directly attributable to the column of the Valuation Book and also on appropriation of any land or to the gift of any Forms 36 and 37 and likewise in any amended land ... for the purpose of streets, roads, paths, Provisional Valuation which may be served squares, gardens or other open spaces for the staling that the "Gross area including so use of the public". However, by definition the much of the adjoining roadways as passes 'total value' was the value of the land after with the land - a. r. p . yds. making the normal deduction for public rights of way.]J Hence, any impact which such an "In any case where the ownership of the land appropriation or gift for use as a highway is severed from the ownership of the land would have had on values had been wiped out abutting upon such roadways and where, in arriving at the 'total vaIue' . For that reason, under those circumstances, a claim for no part of the 'total value' of the unit was deduction is made under Section 25(4)(c) in attributable to a gift of land for the purposes respect of the land appropriated for the of streets even if half the street was included purpose of such roadways the specific case in the unit of valuation. should be reported for further instructions". 12 The official view Unfortunately for us, Instruction 560 does might bave turned on the 'SUbject to the rights of the public' tells us not explain the original decision to exclude fact that s.26(1) drew a that where Instruction 560 refers to 'road­ the uncoloured roads. One possibility is that distinction between"each piece nf land which is ways' it is referring to highways. Some the original decision was designed 10 avoid under separate qualification, such as '(where the road is claims for the double deductions for public occupation" and "anypan a highway)' or ' the rights (if any) of the rights which are discussed in Instruction 560. ofanyland whichis under public' or 'subject to any rights of the public' Another possible explanation14 is that separate occupation": the was to be expected if any other roadways valuing the uncoloured highways, which lattercategoryonlyfell to were in mind. obviously had no potential as a building site bevalued separatelyifthe or redevelopment site, was judged to be a owner requested. The direction that 'the area recorded on the massive waste of time. The pointlessness 13 See below record plans should continue to be exclusive of valuing the uncoloured roads becomes of the site of the external roadways' tells apparent when the four new duties imposed 14 In the writer's view us that such roadways were already being by the 1910 Act are considered. this is the most likely excluded from the valuations, but Instruction I) Increment value dutylS was charged on explanation. 560 does not spell out why that was so. increases in the 'assessable site value'16 when the increases were realised (e.g, on a ISSs.I_12 The reference to the ownership of half the sale) or were deemed to be realised (e.g , on 16 References to 'site adjoining roadway is questionable because a death). The uncoloured highways were value' in the charging in many instances the ' top two spits' of the unlikely to have, or 10 acquire, any significant sections are references uncoloured roads were vested in the highway . assessable site value. By definition, that to the 'assessable site authoriry. Nonetheless, it tells us how the value look into account the depreciatory value': see the final Inland Revenue viewed the ownership. impact of public rights of way over the aragraph of s.25(4) land." Trees growing in the roadside verges oJ The reference to the unit ofvaluation including could have some value but the assessable site I' S.25(3) and s.25(4) half the adjoining roadway is questionable value was what the value of the land would II Ibid. In C.l.R. v, independently of the ownership point, but it have been if the land was "divested of .. . all Smylh [l914J 3 KB 406 tells us how the Inland Revenue viewed that growing timber, fruit trees, fruit bushes, 'other things growing aspect. (It is questionable because s.26(1) and other things growing thereon"}· A nil thereon' was held to of the 1910 Act specifically directed that valuation was relevant where a unit might include grass. "each piece of land which is under separate eventually become part of a building plOl,I9 occupation ... shall be separately valued", but the uncoloured highways had no such 19 cf. C.l.R v. Hubert 20 [I913J AC 226 and a highway which runs between rows of polential. • houses or between inclosures is not norntally 2) Reversion duty 21 was chargeable on the 20 In 1910 the in the same occupation as any of the adjoining benefit accruing to the lessor on the legislation did not houses or inclosures).I2 determination of a lease, and was unlikely include any counterpart to be relevant to highways. of s.247 or s.257 of the The comment on s .25(4)(c) is difficult to 3) The annual charge to undeveloped land Town and Country follow at first reading, but it would have duty 22 was quantified by reference to the Planning ACI 1990. made more sense to a valuer who had mastered 'assessable site value'. As mentioned above, 21 Ss.l3-IS the concepts laid down in the 1910 Act. So the uncoloured highways were unlikely to far as material here, s.25(4)(c) provided for have any significant site value. 22 Ss.16-19 the deduction of "any part of the total value 4) Mineral rights duty was only concerned

Rlgbts of Way Law Review May 2002 Section9.3 Page 155 with tbe rental value of rigbts to work in Agombar, as well as in Mal/bridge. 29 minerals.23 establishing public carriage road status depended on the documentary evidence. In Agombar, Etherton J. referred to 'untaxed public roads'. It is tempting to conclude that The relevant private documents included the treatment ofthe uncoloured roads stemmed conveyances and express grants of easements. from the exemption afforded to land owned Since the 1950s tbose documents had by a rating authority,:z.I but Instruction 560 unmistalcably proceeded on the basis that the sbows that the Inland Revenue were regarding Blue Land was not a public carriage road. the frontagers, not the highway authority, as the They included grants of rights of way over relevant owners of the uncoloured roads.25 the Blue Land for a consideration of £30 a year in one instance and for a lump sum of The Agombar case £6.000 in another instance. Finance Act material played a more influential part in the decision in Agombar 26 than in Against that, in the tithe map the Blue Mal/bridge. In Agombar, too, there was a Land bore the same reference number as the conflict between (a) the indications afforded local public roads. and in the apportionment by the tithe map and Finance Act material and schedule the roads bearing that reference (b) the indications afforded by conveyances number were described as being in the and the grant of private easements. but in occupation of 'Parish Officers' . That was a Agombar the latter indications could be very strong indication that the Blue' Land was discounted on the basis that they dated from regarded as a publicly maintainable higbway a period wben all concerned were unaware at the time. that earlier history pointed to public carriage road status. The earlier history had been Further, in the Finance Act map the Blue overlooked in the 1929 Handover map, and Land was shown as an uncoloured road, and all the relevant private documents dated from a County Council Rights of Way Officer, the 1950s onwards. Mr. AJan Harbour, gave evidence as to the significance ofthat treatment. EthertonJ. said: The lane wbose status was in question in ·1 found his evidence helpful. He emphasised Agombar was referred to as ' the Blue Land'. that the effect of the arrangements made 23 Ss.20-24 The lane is a rural cui de sac which leads under the Act was that local people with local :z.I S.35 from a public road to three properties at its knowledge undertook the valuation and western end. and which also provides access conducted the detailed consultation with IS See also RWLR to two other properties on either side of the the owner of the land . He described how the s. I.I p.42 for the point lane. The three properties at the western end valuation became the most comprehensive that roads for wbose of the lane are (1) 'a large country house XI record of land ever undertaken and became maintenance a R.D.C. dating from at least the seventeenth century', known as 'the Second Doomsday'. The 1910 was responsible did not owned by the defendants (2) a farmhouse 28 Act includes specific provision for reducing vest in the R.D .C. owned by the claimant and (3) a Victorian the gross value of land to take account of any Many of the uncolou. ) road. were in R.D.C. . property which formerly comprised two public rigbts of way or public rights ofuser, areas. individual cottages. as well as easements. Importantly, the Act contained criminal sanctions for falsification 26 Supra note 7 The public road is called Thickwood Lane. of evidence", Etherton J. concluded that At the Thickwood Lane end the Blue Land "The 1910 Finance Act map and schedule XI Described in a 1767 splits into two branches whicb bound two are in my judgment most material evidence map as "Madam FISher'. sides ofa small triangulararea ofland adjacent in relation to the status of the Blue Land Manor House". to Thickwood Lane. Evidence of modern at the time" ,30 :uCalled 'The Old public use of the two branches, mainly in Farmhouse'. connection with the use of a public telephone Tithe maps box sited in the triangle, satisfied Etherton J . The function of the tithe maps has been 29 Supra oote 6 that the branches had been dedicated as a explained in detail elsewhere in RWLR.3' public carriage road. The evidence of public Put shortly, some tithe maps and apportion­ 30 There was 00 use of the remainder of tbe Blue Land was ments do give a strong indication of highway evidence to suggest that confined to use within living memory: that status, but the nature of the exercise did not the Blue Land might bave been oothing more evidence was more equivocal, and did not require the surveyor to distinguish between than a bridleway. satisfy him that the stretch between the triangle highways and private roads. The apportion­ and the three properties mentioned above ment commonly reflected the value of the 31 See e.g. RWLRs.9.3 bad been dedicated as a highway. Hence tithable produce which had been yielded by pp.97·t06

Rights of Way Law Review May 2002 Section 9.3 Page 156 the respective plots of land, but a lane which have attached no weight to the fact that it was was nothing more than a private road might publicly maintainable as a footpath or have yielded no tithable produce because the bridleway. Further, such a provision does 001 road was metalled, whereas a green lane might necessarily carry the implication that the road have had significant value for grazing or for was not regarded at the time as a highway of making hay notwithstanding that it was a any kind : in some cases tile correct inference public highway of one kind or another. may be that tile road was regarded as a public carriage road at tile time, but was regarded as In the tithe map which was relevant in a road which was not maintainable at the Mal/bridge, Mill Lane was shown, in public expense. Some public carriage roads common with other local highways , coloured are privately maintainable under a special ochre and without a plot number. Mill Lane enactment or by reason of tenure, inclosure was not identified individually in the or prescription.F A public road is not apportionment schedule as a private road, maintainable at tile public expense if il was although other private roads in the area were. dedicated after s.23 of the Highway Act 1835 Sullivan J. pointed out why tithe maps did not came into force and was never 'adopted'.33 need to give any indication of highway status, In Mal/bridge, though, the route had existed but he continued: "But if detailed analysis as a through route for over 60 years before s.23 shows that even though he was not required of the Highway ACI 1835 came into force, to do so, the cartographer, or the compiler of and there was no apparent reason to suppose this particular map and apportionment, did in that any dedication as a public carriage road fact treat public and private roads differently, would have been delayed until after 1836. whether by the use of different colours, the Agombar illustrates the point that private use or non-use of plot numbers, or other documents are less significant where earlier symbols, or in schedules or listings, I do not history points to highway status and the see why evidence based upon such analysis document in question dates from a period should not be admissible as to the existence, when all concerned were probably unaware or non-existence of public rights of way. of that earlier history. Whether the analysis does lead to such a conclusion, and if so, what weight should be Caveats attributed to the conclusion is a matter for It is evident that the uncoloured roads included the Inspector". some fenced roads which, although highways, were no more than public bridleways.34 The As appears above, in Agombar the tithe map facts in Mal/bridge might even be seen to gave an unusually clear indication of public indicate that tile same treatment was extended status, in as much as the road in question bore to fenced roads which were merely footpaths, the same reference number as the local public but Sullivan J. did not actually hold that Mill roads, and in the apportionment schedule the Lane was not a bridleway: his view was that roads bearing that reference number were bridleway status was 'not proven', not that described as being in the occupation of bridleway status had been disproved. Funher, the evidence available to the valuer in the 31 See RWLR 5.5.1 'Parish Officers'. Ethenon J. said: "It is that pp.l-ll fact, rather than the issue of whether the Blue 1910s might have pointed more clearly to Land or the surrounding land were titheable, bridleway staros.3• The fact that the road 33 This is subject to that is significant". is uncoloured may point strongly to the exceptions concerning conclusion that the road was recognised as some roads shown on Private documents a highway at tile time but, viewed in isolation, the definitive map: see In the author's view, the fact that private the fact that tile road is uncoloured leaves open RWLR 5.5.1 p.87 documents dealt specifically with the cost of the question whether it was recognised as a 34 AI; respects maintaining a road usually points to the public carriage road or as a lesser highway. developmeot potential, conclusion that, rightly or wrongly, the road these stood 00 the same was not regarded at the time as a highway In Mal/bridge Mr. Millman's evidence footing as public which was maintainable at the public expense. included the statement that: "On three carriage roads. However, it should be borne in mind that occasions I have seen routes uncoloured such a provision does not necessarily carry which were too narrow to have been vehicular 35 It is to be ooted that that implication. For example, in Mal/bridge routes". Sullivan J. expressed the view that Mill Lane was classified the mill owners may have been concerned to the Finance Act material might be explained as J. 'lane or bridleway' 00 Bryant's 1822 map; ensure that the road was maintained to the in another way. He said: "the Finance Act see para. 10 of the high standard needed for the commercial evidence from the map and field book could judgment. operation of tile mill and , accordingly, may be explained if, as seemed likely , this road

Rights of Way Law Review May 2002 Section 9.3 Page 157 was in private. but multiple ownership, with few cartographers. if any, were wholly free each side in the possession of different from error in particular respects does not people. In these circumstances there would be mean that entries on their maps should not be several people with private rights over it, and seen to establish the balance of probability in it would lbus appear superficially that the the absence of equally cogent or more cogent road was public" . However. it seems less evidencepointing the other way. As DenningJ. lileely that lbis was the actual reason when the observed in Miller v. MinisterofPensions,31 landowners' involvement in the valuation the burden of proof in a civil case is not so process is taken into account.36 high as the burden which is required in a criminal case. "If the evidence is such that the Exceptionally, the Finance Act maps may be tribunal can say: we think it more probable found to include errors where they distinguish than not . the burden is discharged. but if the between coloured and uncoloured roads. All probabilities are equal it is not" , the available evidence needs to be weighed carefully where there is other evidence which The weIght of the evidence suggests that the depiction on the Finance Act Another aspect of the evaluation of maps may be wrong. documentary evidence is that a given document may afford useful evidence on Again exceptionally. an uncoloured road some aspects but be of less value for other may be found to peter out in the middle purposes. The fact thaI a road has been left of nowhere.P at a point which holds no uncoloured on the Finance Act map usually attraction which might have caused the public points strongly to highway status but, on the to want to use the road. The problem in such facts in particular cases, it may be seen to cases might have been uncertainty as to the point to nothing more than a public bridleway route which an old but disused highway along an otherwise private road. An early followed beyond that point. The valuation map which portrays the road network process did not prompt the kind of historical diagranunatically is valueless in so far as the research which is now commonplace where a precisealignment ofa road is in issue but, as in definitive map modification order is under the case of Road Book maps, a diagrammatic consideration. map may give a strong indication of the status of roads whose alignment can be deduced The balanee of probabilities from other maps. Similarly, the fact that the On the facts in Agombar, the indications cartographer was notorious for his plagiarism afforded by private documents was out­ is lileely to nullify the apparent value of his weighed by lbe indications afforded by lbe map where the issue is whether a road or track 36 That factor is not tithe map and the Finance Act material. which does not appear on his map had come mentioned in the On the facts in Maltbridge the apparent into existence by the time when the map was judgment, but was significance of the tithe map and Finance Act prepared. but his notorious plagiarism does not treated as a relevant material was seen to be evenly balanced by deprive the mapofall value for other purposes. factor in Agombar, the indications afforded by private documents The working practices and reputation of 37 This does not refer ) which pointed the other way. It is quite the cartographers concerned can be highly to eases where the common for evidence to be found insufficient relevant where maps appear to contradict one uncoloured road because there is evidence of equal or greater another but. in the absence of any conflicting continues as an weight pointing the other way, even lbough evidence, the fact that the cartographer had . unfenced road. the evidence would establish a particular probably copied from other sources does not point on the balance of probabilities if it go to prove that those other sources were 3S [l947J 2 All ER 372 stood alone. probably themselves faulty . That point is 39 (1929) 93 JP 175. illustrated by the analysis of the map The unusual feature of That is not to say that cartographic evidence evidence in Attorney-General v. Woolwich the ease was that early should be, or even can be, discounted on the Metropolitan Borough Council ex rei. the maps were admined basis that, despite the extensive investigation Public Trustee and others.39 There. without objection. Until which has been carried out. further research Shearman J. said: ·of course, Ilcoow that old the Rights or Way Act might show that the map or plan reflected an maps are rather in the habit of being copied 1932, which included error of judgment. A grossly inaccurate one from the other", but thaI did not prevent the precursor of s.32 of commercial map produced by a local printer him from concluding that the evidence the Highways Act 1980. the use of maps in legal might be discounted on the basis that il is so afforded by the early maps was "over­ proceedings could be full of errors lbat there is at least a 50-50 whelming" as to the pre-1836 highway status severely curtailed by a chance that its depiction of the route under of the road whose status was in issue. strict application of the consideration is inaccurate, but the fact that hearsay rule.

Rlghls or Way Law Review May 2002 Section 9.3 Page 158