178 EIGHTS OP RIPARIAK OWNERS. 



tilde, imposed by nature or by user, extend to water oozing through 

 land near a flowing stream, which if not intercepted would find its 

 way into that stream ?" 



" None of the text-books or decisions in which an attempt has been 

 made to define the rights of riparian oicncrs to flowing water have 

 extended them beyond some definite ascertained flowing stream, with 

 the exception of Dickinson v. The Grand Junction Canal Comjmny. To 

 extend them further would interfere with rights of the landowner, 

 which- have never yet been disputed. Thus a riparian owner cannot 

 divert a flowing stream for any purpose, whether for irrigation or 

 draining his land, or any other, to the prejudice of other riparian 

 owners. But // has never yet been held, nor was it contended on the 

 aro-ument of this case, that a man migld not drain his land, and so 

 abstract iccder oozing through it, although such water would have 

 otherwise have found its way to a flowing stream. Nor has it been 

 contended that an owner of land situate near a flowing stream may 

 not make a pond for use or ornament, although water would ooze 

 into it which otherwise would have gone into the stream; but he 

 could not for any of these purposes abstract water from a flowing 

 stream. Again, the owner of land near a flowing stream has hitherto 

 been supposed to have the right of preventing water from coming into 

 his land from higher ground, provided he does not throw it back upon 

 his neighbours ; but he can no longer do that, if water so percolated is 

 to be juit upon the same footing as a natural flowing stream ; for that 

 he cannot lawfully divert, even for the purpose of preventing injury to 

 his land. But if he may prevent the water from oozing into his land, 

 why should he not allow it to come, and then collect and use it ? And 

 to allow this, would be in direct conformity with Raivstron v. Taylor, 

 and Broadbent v. Eamsbotham. The case of Dickinson v. The Grand 

 Junction Canal Compamj having been cited in argument in Broadbent 

 V. Eamsbotham, Parke B. observed, ' That case only decided that if a 

 person had a right to a stream jure ncdurcc, he had a right to its sub- 

 terranean course.' If it went beyond that, it appears to have been re- 

 pudiated by the same Court in both Rawstron v. Taylor and Broadbent 

 v. Eamsbotham, and I tliink rightly. And adopting the law laid down 

 in these two latter cases, I am of opinion that the action cannot be main- 

 tained, and that the judgment of the Court below must be confirmed." 



This case of Chasemore v. Eichards was carried to the House of Lords 

 by "Writ of Error, but the judgment of the Exchequer Chamber was 

 confirmed. 



Hence, the owner of an ancient water-mill on a river has no right 

 of action against an owner of land adjacent Avho digs a deep well on 



