Findlay, J C—The plaintiffs-appellants' suit has been dismissed in both the lower Courts for reasons which are clear from the two judgments in question. The plaintiffs claimed that they had a right to ingress of light and air and to emit smoke through the window E shown in the plan attached to the plaint; that they had also a right to pass on to the vacant land A B C D in order to effect repairs to their wall A D; and, finally, that they had a right to project the eaves two feet to the south of A D. Both the lower Courts have held that the window has not been in existence for more than 15 years and that no prescriptive right of easement had, therefore, been acquired.

2. It has been contended on behalf of the plaintiffs-appellants in this Court that the right in question might also have been acquired by grant or custom and that the lower Courts have failed to consider this aspect of the case. If there was to have been any question of the right of easement in question having been acquired by grant or custom, there should have been specific pleading on the point and it is fairly obvious that the contention is now raised for the first time merely because the findings of fact arr