Co., Limited. 



WEEDS. 63 



neous, i.e., created or brought by the pollution 

 to his premises. 



The case of Gilbey v. Wiggins, Teape, and Gilbey v. 



Wiggins, 



Co., Limited, carried these principles one step Teape and 



further, and the thanks of all true sportsmen are 



due to Mr. Alfred Gilbey for the public spirit 



displayed by him in fighting the action. In 



this case nothing extraneous or artificial was 



the source of the mischief. The mill was shut 



down for about five months, and during that 



time a quantity of mud accumulated in the mill 



head. Later on, the occupier being desirous of 



working the mill, the weeds were cut in the 



mill head, and for the purpose of carrying 



away these cut weeds and the accumulated 



mud the ground gates were lifted. The result 



of this was that the mud was suddenly and 



in a body carried down the stream, so as to 



pollute the water and destroy the fish. 



The source of mischief, as will have been 

 observed, was here the accumulation to an 

 abnormal extent of the mud and sediment 

 brought down in suspension by the natural flow 

 of the water, and lodged in the mill head. The 

 real principle seems now to be contained in the 

 following sentence, for which I am indebted to 

 my learned friend, Mr. W. Pingo Horton : — 



" Though a riparian owner has, subject to the corre- 

 sponding rights of his fellow riparian owners, the right to 



