1885.] LEGAL. 271 



was fit for the purposes to which it was applied. Indeed, the 

 tenant of the island said that although his grieve and the people on 

 the island drank the Tay water at present, he did not think it was 

 fit for use. Nor did it help the pursuer that tlie water-supply of 

 Perth and of the General Prison were drawn from the river. These 

 supplies were filtered before being used, and so long as the filtration 

 was attended to, no bad results followed. AVhether there had been 

 a material increase in the pollution of the river since 1868 was a 

 question of difficulty on the proof He might add that, in his 

 opinion, the chief cause of the pollution in the river, and the worst 

 kind of pollution, came from the General Prison by a lade or 

 channel which was not the defenders'. As regarded the salmon 

 fishings, the pursuer had proved that, whereas in 1868 they were 

 let at a rent of £380, the rent in 1885 was only £50, and he 

 attributed the fall in rent and consequent loss to himself entirely to 

 the increased pollution of the river. The evidence on that subject 

 was altogether opinion, and on a careful consideration of it his 

 Lordship was of opinion that the pursuer had failed to prove that 

 the operations of the defenders had done the injury of which the 

 pursuer complained. It appeared to his Lordship, however, that the 

 causes assigned by the defenders' witnesses (and admitted by many 

 of the pursuer's witnesses) were sufficient in themselves to account 

 for the injury of which the pursuer complained. His Lordship 

 accordingly sustained the sixth and seventh pleas in law for the 

 defenders, and assoilzied them with expenses. 



Counsel for Pursuer — ]\Ir. Mackay and Mr. Darling. Agents — 

 Lindsay, Howe, & Co., W.S. 



Counsel for Defenders — Mi\ Pearson and Mr. Dickson. Agents 

 — Irons, Eoberts, & Lewis, S.S.C. 



ALLEGED BREACH OF LRLSH TLMBER CONTRACT. 

 S. WiLSO]si V. CoL. E. A. D. Hepenstall. 



IN the Court of Queen's Bench, Dublin, on June 20th, before 

 Chief Justice Morris and a special jury, Samuel AVilson v. 

 Colonel Ealph Anthony Dopping Hepenstall was an action to 

 recover damages for an alleged breach of contract, by which the 

 defendant had agreed to sell to the plaintiff 250 tons of timber, at 

 the rate of 9s. per ton, as agreed on in February 1884. The 

 plaintiff, a timber merchant in Athlone, sent his woodcutters to the 

 defendant's estate at Derrycasser, Co. Longford, and when they got 

 about 60 or 70 tons which had been blown down by a storm, they 

 asked that the remainder should be pointed out to them. Defendant 

 said that was all he had, that he only intended to sell the timber 

 that had been blown down ; whereupon the plaintiff refused to take 



