72 
THE MIDDLE LIAS OF NORTHAMPTONSHIRE. 
underground waters. It was pointed out that an outlying 
district of Northampton—St. James’ End—at that time in 
considerable difficulty as to the disposal of its sewage, might 
construct dumb-wells, reaching to the Marlstone, and get rid 
of it by means of them, and thus contaminate the water 
supply of the town. As it was then generally thought there 
was no legal power to prevent this, I could only answer such 
objections by pointing out that it was not probable the 
authorities at St. James’ End would try a scheme which it 
was impossible could work satisfactorily for them ; for one 
such well would rapidly silt up, with the solid matter carried 
into it, to above the water-bearing bed, and then not even 
the liquid portion would be got rid of. Fortunately there is 
now little fear that such a plan will be tried here or elsewhere 
in the country, for it has been decided in a very emphatic 
manner that although the owner of a well has a perfect right 
7 to all the water he can obtain from it, as it exists in nature, 
he must not deny that right to others by polluting the 
common source. The case is so important that it cannot be 
too well known ; hence I have given a summary of the 
contention and decision below. 
* About forty years ago two deep wells, with borings, 
were made at Brentford, one at a brewery, the other at a 
distillery. They both passed through Gravel, London Clay, 
and the Lower London Tertiaries into the Chalk, the last 
named being met with at a depth of rather over 300ft. 
The two wells are 99yds. apart, and when the distillery 
ceased to exist, and the premises were converted into 
printing works, the well there was used as a cess-pit, with 
the result that the other well became considerably con¬ 
taminated, and of course continued to be so when the disuse 
of the first named well was stopped. This condition of 
matters led to an action by Mr. Ballard against the owner of 
the distillery well, Mr. Tomlinson, for heavy damages. 
There was absolute proof of communication between the two 
w T ells, and so the decision for defendant given by Mr. Justice 
Pearson, in February, 1884, was entirely based on his inter¬ 
pretation of the law, he holding that the plaintiff had no 
greater right with respect to the quality of the water than he 
had with regard to the quantity, that he must take the water 
as he found it, both in quantity and quality, the decision 
* From a pamphlet by Mr. W. Whitaker, B.A., F.G.S., &c ., on 
“ A recent Legal Decision of importance in connection with Water 
8upply from Wells.” Report of paper read September 25, 1885, at 
Congress of the Sanitary Institute of Great Britain. See also “ Justice 
of the Peace ” for February 21, 1885. 
