SUPPLYING HORSES WITH WATER FROM PUBLIC FOUNTAIN. 107 



health, empowered by their private act to supply a town with water at 

 certain rates, supplied an ornamental fountain (which had been pre- 

 sented to the town by one of the inhabitants, and erected in one of the 

 public streets) with water for the use of cattle in the cattle market on 

 market days, and for horses, if yol^ed, ivhen jiasshig to and fro. The 

 board had a fixed charge per horse for water supplied to persons keep- 

 ing horses, who might choose to have water laid into their stables. 

 The respondent, in order to evade payment of this charge, took his 

 horses from his stahte to the fountain to drink. Upon a complaint 

 against him for so doing, under the Water Works Clauses Act, 1847, 

 sec. 59, which enacts that "every person who, not having agreed to be 

 supplied with water by the undertakers, shall take any water from any 

 place containing water belonging to the undertakers other than such 

 as may have been provided for the gratuitous use of the public, shall 

 forfeit," &c. ; the magistrates being of opinion that the local board 

 had no power to erect a fountain in the public highway except for the 

 gratuitous use of the public, and that therefore the water supplied to 

 such fountains came within the exception in the above clause, refused 

 to convict. It was held by the Court of Common Pleas that the deci- 

 sion of the magistrate was -RTong ; for that, whether the fountain were 

 a public nuisance or not, the board were at liberty to supply it with 

 water on their own conditions. And per WiUiams J. : " It is clear, 

 upon the facts here, that there was no unrestricted dedication to the 

 public at large, and nothing in the act of parliament to work that result. 

 Though there may be a dedication for a limited purpose to all, there 

 cannot be a dedication to a limited part of the public on the principle 

 which is established in Poole v. Huskisson (11 M. & W. 827), and The 

 Marquis of Stafford v. Coyney ( 7 B. & 0. 257). The consequence is 

 not that a partial dedication will operate as a dedication to all the 

 public, but such dedication is simply void, and no dedication at all. 

 And 2)er ByJes B. : "I am not sure that the use for which this watei' 

 is supplied was not a public use. Anybody's cattle and yoke-horses 

 may drink at it ; and though the time at which the fountain may be 

 used, and the class of cattle and horses, which may use it are limited, 

 it is not the less for the use of all the public (see Rex v. Berenger, 3 M. 

 & S. 73). But that by no means justifies the respondent in using the 

 water for other purposes than those to which the use is limited {Hildrcth 

 appt. V. Adamson resp.)— 30 L. J. (N. S.), M. C, 204. 



Conveyance of right of continuance of culvert with farm — By permis- 

 sion of the tenant for life of farms A and B, the defendant many years 

 ago made a culvert from a brook, which in its natural course flowed to 

 farm A for the purpose of getting water for his own premises, and 



