6 2 MAKING A FISHERY. 



proprietors immediately above him, and they in 

 turn ought to have a remedy against the 

 proprietors above them. It is said by some 

 members of the legal profession that the plea 

 of custom would be successfully raised as a 

 defence against an action brought on these 

 grounds. No doubt, proving the custom, which 

 would not be difficult, would impose difficulties, 

 but, although law and justice do not always go 

 hand in hand, it does not seem likely that any 

 judge would indorse so monstrous a proposition 

 as that proving the custom of dealing with the 

 cut weeds in an unjust or illegal manner should 

 render such dealing just or legal. 



The following principles appear to be clearly 

 settled when dealing with this question, as laid 

 down in "Addison on Torts:'' — 



" If a riparian proprietor higher up a stream throws dirt 

 or refuse into it, so as to defile the water, and render it 

 unfit for use, to the damage of another riparian proprietor 

 who has been in the habit of using the water, an action is 

 maintainable for the injury." 



And further, 



" Every person who throws dirt or rubbish into a stream 

 so as to defile the water, and prevent the riparian proprietors 

 and others from having the beneficial use of the water they 

 have been accustomed to, is guilty of a nuisance, and may 

 be made responsible in damages." 



These principles, however, seem confined to 

 •cases where the source of pollution was extra- 



