EIGHT TO DRAIN FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES. 1S5 



order to get rid of mere surface water, the supply of the water beuif^ 

 casual, aud its flow followiug no regular or definite course ; and a neigh- 

 bouring proprietor cannot complain that he is thereby deprived of f-uch 

 water, which would otherwise have come to his land and filled his 

 reservoir. The land of the plaintiff and defendant was contiguous, and 

 just on the outside of the defendant's land there was a wet spongy spot 

 (D), where at most seasons some water rose to the surface, and sufficient 

 collected to flow down the slope of the land. In times of wet there 

 was a great body of water, but scarcely any after a long drought. 

 There was no regularly formed ditch or channel for water, the place 

 where it flowed being constantly troddeu-in with cattle. At times 

 there was a drinking place at the corner of the field, near (D), but 

 unless it was kept clear it was soon troddcn-in with cattle. Near The 

 Slacks farm-house by which it flowed there was a channel cut, which 

 conveyed the water into a trough there, which the water flowed through, 

 and supplied the house. xVfter leaving the trough, the water took no 

 particular direction. 



It either flowed over the meadow down the slope of the land, or the 

 tenant of the Slacks made it flow through the manure-heap, and then 

 over the meadow. But whichever direction was given to the water, so 

 much of it as was not absorbed by the land (and all was not absorbed 

 except in times of drought) ran into an old watercourse of the plain- 

 tiff's, which led to a reservoir of the plaintiff's. The water had so 

 flowed for upwards of twenty years, and the defendant, for the purpose 

 of draining his land and of supplying some part of his property with 

 water, diverted this water from the plaintiff's reservoir. At another 

 spot (K) on plaintiff's land, as long ago as one could recollect, water 

 had always risen to the surface. There had generally been a drinking 

 place for cattle formed with stones, and the overflow of the water went 

 down a ditch, and thence into a watercourse, to the plaintiff's reservoir. 

 There was also a third point, which is fully referred to in Parke B.'s 

 judgment. Speaking of spot D, his lordship said, " The plaintiff has 

 no right to the rain-water which may flow from that spot to his 

 land ; and what authority is there for saying that spring- water differs 

 from rain-water ? " '' On the question," his lordship added, " as to 

 the interference of the defendant Avith the Avater at the spot 1), the 

 defendant is entitled to have a verdict. This is the case of common 

 surface water rising out of spongy or boggy ground, and flowing in no 

 definite channel, although contributing to the supply of the plaintiff's 

 mill. This water having no defined course, and its siq^ply heing merely 

 casual, the defendant is entitled to get rid of it any way he pleases. 

 The same observations apply to the water rising at the point Iv. This 



