P had put a sign for his pub on D’s wall for 40-50 years. Fry J ruled that this was an easement.
Fry J: Although no evidence could be adduced to show that the sign was first erected with legal permission, he said that since it was “evidently convenient, and in one sense necessary, for the enjoyment of the Plaintiffs' premises, I think I am bound… to presume a legal origin and continuance to that fact.” The fact that P’s predecessors first affixed the signs suggests an easement. On the objection that the easement related not to the tenement, but to the business of the occupant of the tenement, that argument is unrealistic: “the occupant only uses the house for the business, and therefore in some manner (direct or indirect) an easement is more or less connected with the mode in which the occupant of the house uses it.”
