192 CROSSING another's LAND FOR PURPOSES OF IRRIGATION. 



acted on the stream in an unusual manner, and penned the water higher 

 than it ought, the defendant was entitled to pull it down. A verdict 

 for the i>laintiff was confirmed by the Court, " on the short ground that 

 the defendant had done more than she ought to have done." And ^^er 

 Tindal C.J. : " The board in dispute was fastened by stakes, which was 

 not usual ; but the defendant, instead of removing the stakes alone, 

 removed the board also. If a party who had a right to a stone weir 

 were to erect buttresses, one who should oppose the erection of the but- 

 tresses could not justify demolishing the weir as well as the buttresses." 

 And see also Ward v. Rubins (15 M. & W. 237). 



TJie oMnicUon of an easement of going across difendanVs land to dam 

 vp water, and hring it hy an artificial cut through the defendant's land to 

 the jilainlifs far irrigation and the use of his cattle, was the subject of 

 Beeston v. Weafe (25 L. J. Q. B. 115). The defendant occupied land 

 which was bounded on the south by land in the occupation of the plain- 

 tiff, called the Coiv Pasture. A natural stream ran along the north side 

 of the defendant's land, and there was an artificial watercourse passing 

 from this brook through the defendant's land (crossing a road on the 

 same land) to the land of the plaintiff. According to the evidence this 

 watercourse looked as old, sixty years ago, as at the present time. For 

 more than forty years, and as long back as living memory went, the 

 occupiers of the plaintiff's land had been in the habit of crossing the de- 

 fendant's land, and of placing sods so as to form a dam, obstructing the 

 course of the water in the natural brook immediately below the point at 

 which the artificial watercourse joined it. The effect of this was to 

 throw the water into the artificial watercourse, through which it flowed 

 across the defendant's land to the land of the plaintiff; where it supplied 

 a pit or pond. This the occupiers of the plaintiff's land had constantly 

 done to supply their cattle with water, at such times as the lowness of 

 the water in the brook rendered it necessary. When the water was 

 wanted by the occupiers of the defendant's land, as it usually was at cer- 

 tain seasons of the year for the irrigation of that land, the water did 

 not reach the plaintiff's land. The water, after being conducted on to 

 the land of the plaintiff, ran off by another arm and rejoined the natural 

 brook. It was not denied tliat the defendant had done the acts com- 

 plained of. This evidence being uncontradicted except by an unsuc- 

 cessful attempt to prove an interruption, Erie J. told the jury that if 

 the occupiers of the i^laintiff's land at the proper season had at their 

 will and pleasure turned the water on to tlieir land for the purpose of 

 supplying the cattle with water, the plaintiff was entitled to a verdict. 

 The Court refused a new trial, and held that the jury Avere warranted 

 in inferring a user as of right by the occupiers of plaintiff's land of the 



