ISi ESCAPE OF LIQUID MANURE INTO NEIGHBOUR'S FIELD. 



and cultivating his close ; and by means of the alterations, the water, 

 which had been accustomed to flow into the plaintiff's pit, flowed into 

 the ditch at a lower level, whereby the plaintiff's pit lost the water 

 which had been accustomed to flow into it through the said sough. 



The plaintiff had a verdict before Alderson B. for 40s., subject to a 

 special verdict ; and the Court, after a very careful consideration, gave 

 judgment for the defendant. It was contended for the plaintiff that, by 

 the uninterrupted enjoyment of the flow and use of this water for the 

 time mentioned, the plaintiff had gained a right to its continuance 

 either at common law, by the presumption of a grant, or by virtue of 

 the Prescription Act 2 & 3 117//. IV. c. 71. Parlce B. observed : "The 

 cases of Arlncrtght v. GeJl and ^Yood v. Waucl are opposed to the 

 plaintiff's claim. TJie right of a pciriy to an artificial water-course, as 

 against the party creating it, must depend upon the character of the 

 watercourse, and the circumstances under which it was created. The 

 watercourse is clearly of a temporary nature only, and is dependent upon 

 the mode which the defendant may adopt in draining his land. This 

 is the precise case M'hich was put by the Court in Wood v. ]Yaud, where 

 it is said by the Court in their judgment, that ' the flow of water for 

 twenty years from the eaves of a house could not give a right to the 

 neighbour to insist that the house should not be pulled down or altered, 

 so as to diminish the quantity of water flowing from the roof. The 

 flow of water from a drain for the purpose of agricultural improvements 

 for twenty years could not give a right to the neighbour so as to 

 preclude the proprietor from altering the level of his drains for the 

 greater imj^rovement of his land. The state of circumstances in such 

 a case shows that one party never intended to give, nor the other to 

 enjoy, the use of the stream as a matter of right: Alderson B. added : 

 ' In one sense, perhaps, it may be said that the plaintiff has enjoyed the 

 use of this water as of right, because the defendant had not in any 

 way impeded such use ; but it is not such a user as of right as will 

 Eer\-e his present purpose, for there has been no adverse user. Take 

 the case of a farmer, who under the old system of farming has allowed 

 the liquid manure from his fold-yard to run into a pit in ?iis neighbour's 

 field, but upon finding that the manure can be beneficially applied 

 to his own land has stopped the flow of it into his neighbour's 

 pit, and converted it to his own use ; could it be contended that 

 the fact of his neiglibour having used this manure for upwards of 

 twenty years would give the latter the right of requiring its con- 

 tinuance ? ' " 



In liawslron v. Taylor (25 L. J. Ex. 33) it was held that the owner of 

 land has an ungiialified right to drain it for agricultural imr2wses, in 



