APPENDIX TO 
selves ordered to appear at the 
Sessions in January next. . 
, Lancaster Assizes. 
Before Mr. Baron Richards and 
a special Jury.— Holt v. Meadow- 
. eroft.—This was an action for di- 
verting the water of a river called 
the New Roach. The plaintiffand 
his partners were the proprietors 
of several fulling and carding 
mills, and it was stated that they 
had been for upwards of 40 years 
in. the exclusive employment of 
that portion of the waters of the 
river which flowed to their mills, 
and for the purpose of appropri- 
ating the waters, had erected a 
wear of the proper standard 
height. The defendant, a pro- 
fessional gentleman of eminence, 
became, by the death ofa relation, 
possessed of a corn mill, which 
was situated near the plaintiffs 
mill. The defendant’s mill was fed 
bya scanty stream, called Cathead 
Brook, but of so inefficient power 
that the mill could not be worked 
- above one day in a week. The 
consequence of this was, the de- 
fendant could with difficulty pro- 
cure a tenant for his mill, and if 
he found one, he was obliged to let 
it at very low rates. He therefore 
endeavoured to add to the power 
of the mill, and this he effected 
by cutting a sluice from the river 
to his own mill. By doing so, he 
greatly improved his mill, and ren- 
dered it of considerable annual 
value; but it was soon found that 
in proportion as the sluice added 
to the power of the defendant's, it 
deteriorated those of the plaintift’s, 
and made it impossible for the 
wheels, for want of water to work 
the same. quantity of machinery 
they had donebefore. Such wasthe 
CHRONICLE. 
nature of the injury for which the - 
action was brought. The cause 
extended to a very great length, 
owing to the number of witnesses 
examined on both sides. On the 
part of the plaintiffs it was proved 
that their mills were frequently 
unable to work at their usual 
speed, while the water was run- 
ning flush down the defendant’s 
sluice. On the other hand, it 
was contended by the defendant’s 
counsel, that his client had done 
no more than he was by law en- 
titled todo. He admitted that 
the person who became the first 
occupant of the waters of a river, 
by erecting a wear, had a right 
to the enjoyment of what he had 
so appropriated without interrupe 
tion; but he was entitled to no 
more, and if it was observed that 
he had more than he wanted, and 
a part of the water ran over his 
wear to waste, in that case his 
neighbour had a right to take the 
overplus for his own use. This, 
he contended, was all that the 
defendant had done. He had so 
constructed his sluice above the 
level of the plaintiff’s wear, that 
the water would not enter it, till 
after it had flowed a certain depth 
over the plaintiff's wear. . It ap- 
peared, however, by the testimony 
of the plaintiff's witnesses, that 
the greater the body of water was 
that flowed to waste over a wear, 
the heavier was the pressure upon 
the wheel, and of course the more 
facility was given .to all the in- 
ternal operations of the machi- 
nery. Of this opinion were the 
jury, and, they accordingly re- 
turned their verdict in favour of 
the plaintiff. The question was 
considered of very considerable 
importance te persons interested 
303 
