No right to flowing water except where it has a definite channel.

(i) Stockport Waterworks Co. v. Potter, (1864) 3 H. & C. 300; Ormerod v. Todmorden Mill Co., (1883) 11 Q. B. D. 155; 52 L. J. Q. B. 445; Mccartney v. L. D. & L. 8. R., 1904, A. C. 315.

(k) Remit v. G. E. R. Co., (1884) 27 Ch. D. 122; 54 L. J. Ch. 19; Kerr on Injunctions, 5th ed. 233; Goddard, 8th ed. 482. As to the form of relief, see Partington v. Prinsep Hall Coal Co., (1877) 5 Ch. D. 769; 46 L. J. Ch. 773.

(l) See Wood v. Waud; Embrey v. Owen, sup.; A.-g. v. Corp. of Plymouth, (1845) 9 Beav. 67; 15 L. J. Ch. 109; Elmhirst v. Spencer, (1849) 2 M. & G. 45; 14 L. T. (O. S.) 433; Sampson v. Hoddinott, (1857) 1 C. B. N. S. 590; 26 L. J. C. P. 148; Mccartney v. Londonderry & L. S. R. Co., 1904, A. C. 301; and see Remfry v. Surv.-gen. of Natal, 1896, A. C. 558; 65 L. J. P. C. 72; Gale, 10th ed. 248 and 251; Goddard, 482.

(m) See Holker v. Porritt, (1875) L. E. 10 Ex. 59; 44 L. J. Ex. 52; and see Watts v. Kelson, (1871) 6 Ch. 166; 40 L. J. Ch. 126; Westwood v. Heywood, 1921, 2 Ch. 130.

(n) Broadbent v. Ramsbotham, (1856) 11 Ex. 602; 25 L. J. Ex. 115; and see Rawstron v. Taylor, (1855) 11 Ex. 369, 382; 25 L. J. Ex. 33; Gale, 10th ed. 257.

(o) Dickinson v. Grand Junction Canal Co., (1852) 7 Ex. 300, 301; 21 L. J. Ex. 241; and see Chasemore v. Richards, (1859) 7 H. L. C. 349; 29 L. J. Ex. 81; Grand Junction Canal Co. v. Shugar, (1871) 6 Ch. 483; Mcnab v. Robertson, 1897, A. O. 129; 66 L. J. P. C. 27; Goddard, 8th ed. 319.

A right to use a natural stream for the purpose of washing ore, and carrying off the sand, stone and rubble dislodged in the necessary working of a mine, may be acquired by custom or prescription (x). But where a prescriptive right to foul a stream has been acquired, the fouling must not be increased to the prejudice of the other riparian proprietors (y); nor so as to increase the pollution by a novel mode of user (z); nor though the pollution is not increased can the right be exercised for an entirely (different purpose from that for which it was originally claimed (a). The mere suspension of the exercise of the prescriptive right is not sufficient to destroy it, unless there is some evidence of an intention to abandon it; but where dye-works had been disused for more than twenty years, the right of fouling the stream which attached thereto was held to be abandoned (b).

Prescriptive right to foul a stream.

(p) Chasemore v. Richards, (1859) 7 H. L. C. 349; 29 L. J. Ex. 81; Bradford (Corp. of) v. Pickles, 1895, A. C. 587; 64 L. J. Ch. 759; Bradford Corp. v. Ferrand, 1902, 2 Ch. 658; 71 L. J. Ch. 859; Acton v. Blundell, (1843) 12 M. & W. 324; 13 L. J. Ex. 289.

(q) Chasemore v. Richards, sup., questioning Dickinson v. Grand Junction Canal Co., (1852) 7 Ex. at p. 300; 21 L. J. Ex. 241.

(r) West Cumberland Co. v. Kenyon, (1879) 11 Ch. D. 782; 40 L. T. 703.

(s) Dudden v. Clutton Union, (1857) 1 H. & N. 627; 26 L. J. Ex. 146; Bunting v. Hicks, (1894) 70 L. T. 455; Mostyn v. Atherton, 1899, 2 Ch. 360; 68 L. J. Ch. 629.

(t) Ballard v. Tomlinson, (1885) 29 Ch. D. 115; 54 L. J. Ch. 127.

(u) Goddard, 8th ed. p. 100, and see p. 495; Hodgkinson v. Ennor, (1863) 4 B. & S. 229; 32 L. J. Q. B. 231.

The same rules, which regulate the rights of user of a natural stream, apply also, in general, to an artificial watercourse; but in determining what rights can be acquired in respect of an artificial watercourse, the special or temporary purpose for which it was originally constructed, and has since been used, must not be overlooked (c). Thus, a user for twenty years of the flow of water from the agricultural drainage of adjoining land gives no right to its continuance (d). So, no prescriptive right by user can be acquired to the overflow of water from a lock, so as to prevent a canal company from improving the construction of the lock (e); a person receiving water discharged from a mine cannot insist on a continuance of such discharge (f); the flow of water for twenty years from the eaves of a house into a neighbour's yard, does not prevent the owner of the house from pulling it down, or altering it so as to discontinue or leasen the supply of water from the roof (g); an easement in respect of a watercourse temporarily constructed for the purposes of a mill cannot be created (h).

Distinction between natural and artificial watercourses as respects the rights which may be acquired.

(x) Carlyon v. Lovering, (1857) 1 H.& N. 784; 26 L. J. Ex. 251.

(y) Crossley v. Lightowler, (1867) 2 Ch. 478; 36 L. J. Ch. 584; Mcintyre v. Mcgavin, 1893, A. C. 268; 57 J. P. 548; Hulley v. Silver-springs Bleaching Co., 1922, 2 Ch. 268.

(z) Baxendale v. Mcmurray, (1867) 2 Ch. 790; 16 W. R. 32.

(a) Clarke v. Somersetshire Drainage Commrs., (1888) 57 L. J. M. C. 96.

(b) Crossley v. Lightowler, sup.; Hammerton v. Honey, (1876) 24 W. B. 603; James v. Stevenson, 1893, A. C. 162; 62 L. J. P. C. 51; and see also, as to suspension of the easement, Ladymnn v. Grave, (1871) 6 Ch. 763; 25 L. T. 52; and as to long-continued interruption from natural causes, see Hall v. Swift. (1838) 4 Bing. N. C. 381; 7 L. J. N. S. C. P. 209; and as to the right to pollute streams or rivers, see Goldsmid v. Tunbridge Wells Commoners, (1866) 1 Ch. 349; 35 L. J. Ch. 382; A.-g. v. Corp. of Leeds, (1870) 5 Ch. 583; .39 L. J. Ch. 711; Swan v. Sinclair, 1924, 1 Ch. 254; 1925, A. C. 227.

(c) Magor v. Chadwick, (1840) 11 A. & E. 571; 4 Jur. 482; Sutcliffe v. Booth, (1863) 9 Jur. N. S. 1037; 33 L. J. Q. B. 136; Nuttall v. Bracewell, (1866) L. B. 2 Ex. 1; 36 I*. J. Ex. 1; Beeston v. Weate, (1856) 5 E. & B. 986; 25 L. J. Q. B. 115; Roberts v. Richards, (1881) 50 L. J. Ch. 297; 44 L. T. 271; Hanna v. Pollock, (1900) 2 Ir. B. 664; Burrows v. Lang, 1901, 2 Ch. 502; 70 L. J. Ch. 607: Baily v. Clark, 1902, 1 Ch. 649; 71 L. J. Ch. 396; and see Rameshur Singh v. Koonj Pattuk, (1878) 4 A. C. 121; and judgment of Bowen, L. J., in Chamber Coll. Co. v. Hopwood, (1886) 32 Ch. D. 549. Cf. Whitmores (Edenbridge), Ltd. v. Stanford, 1909, 1 Ch. 427, 437; and see Lewis v. Meredith, 1913, 1 Ch. 571.