JUDGMENT 1. The plaintiffs claim the right to a channel marked in the plan Exhibit A across the defendants lands which originally belonged to Government. There was no channel then. There can be, therefore, no claim to an apparent and continuous easement under Section 13 of the Easements Act. The plaintiffs had the channel cut subsequent to the severance of the tenements; and they have not had enjoyment sufficient to enable them to acquire a prescriptive right. If the decision in Morgan v. Kirbey (sic), be opposed to this view, we must, with all respect, hold that it has not been rightly decided. Any how it is not a decision on the language of Section 13 of the Act, which is clear. We may add that Morgan v. Kirb(sic) (1) may have proceeded on the view of t facts that the artificial channel there existed when both properties were in the hands of Government. We must reverse the decree of the lower appellate Court and dismiss the suit with cost throughout. The memo, of objections is dismissed with costs.