188 INAPPRECIABLE ABSTRACTION OF WATER. 



priefor has ivithhi certain hounds a r'ujlit to use ivater for the jnirjwse of 

 irriyation. The point was raised in Wood v. Waud, but it became un- 

 necessary to decide it. In Emhrcij v. Owen the plaintiff occupied a 

 water grist-mill on tlie banks of the Rhiew, and the defendant owned 

 land on both sides of that river above the mill. The action was brought 

 against her for diverting part of the water of the river, to irrigate cer- 

 tain meadows on the northern bank, in the occupation of her tenant 

 John Jones. The water was diverted by means of an iron trough or 

 aquednct, placed near a waste weir, from whence the surplus or waste 

 water was carried into the trough or aqueduct, and by it over the river 

 into the main and floating gutters of the meadow, when required for 

 irrigation. At other times such surplus water was discharged from 

 the trough or aqueduct direct into the bed of the river by means of an 

 iron flap or sluice in the middle side of the trough, so constructed as 

 to be opened for the latter purpose at pleasure. A portion of the water 

 was lost by absorption and evaporation in the process of irrigation, but 

 the working of the plaintiff's mill was not impeded, and all the wit- 

 nesses agi-eed that there was no sensible diminution of the stream by 

 reason of the diversion. The verdict was for the defendant on the first 

 issue, as to whether there was any sensible diminution of the natural 

 flow of the water by means of the diversion, which they answered in the 

 negative ; and also for the defendant on the other issues, as to whether 

 the quantities of water absorbed and evaporated in the process of the 

 defendant's irrigation were small and inappreciahle quantities, which 

 they answered in the affirmative. Talfourd J. directed that the verdict 

 should be entered on the above issues for the defendant, reserving leave 

 to the plaintiffs to move to enter it for them with nominal damages. A 

 rule nisi was accordingly obtained, but the Coui-t decided that the verdict 

 was properly entered for the defendant on the issues above named. 



Parke B. said in his judgment, "The most important question is 

 that which arises on the plea of Not guilty, the jury having found that 

 no sensible diminution of the natural flow of the stream to the plaintiff's 

 mill was caused by the abstraction of the water. That the working of 

 the mill was not in the least impeded was clear on the evidence, and 

 on that finding we think the verdict was properly ordered to be entered 

 for the defendant. 



" In America, as may be inferred (3 Kent's Com. Lect. 52, 439-44G), 

 and as is stated in the judgment of the Court of Exchequer in Wood v. 

 Waud, a very liberal use of the stream for the purposes of irrigation 

 and for carrying on manufactures is permitted. So in France, where 

 every one may use it en bonjjcre de faniille et pour son plus grand avan- 

 tage, a man may make trenches to conduct the water to irrigate his 



