Wright and Another v Williams and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1836 |
| Date | 01 January 1836 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 150 E.R. 353
EXCHEQUER OF PLEAS.
S. C. 1 Tyr. & G. 375; 1 Gale, 410; 5 L. J. Ex. 107. Distinguished, Wilson v. Stanley, 1861, 12 Ir. C. L. R. 345. Referred to, Hollins v. Verney, 1884, 13 Q. B. D. 306; Gardner v. Hodgson's Kingston Brewery Company, [1900] 1 Ch. 596; Colls v. Home and Colonial Stores, [1904] A. C. 190.
[77] wright and another v. williams and others. Exch. of Pleas. 1836. -A claim by an owner of a copper mine to sink pits on his own land, to fill such pits with iron, and to cover the same with water pumped from the mine, for the purpose of precipitating the copper contained in such water, and afterwards to let off the water impregnated with metallic substances into a watercourse upon the land of another, is a claim to a watercourse, within the 2nd section of 2 & 3 Will. 4, c. 71.-hi a plea under the statute 2 & 3 Will. 4, c. 71, it is sufficient to allege that the user had existed for forty years before the commencement of the suit, arid it need not be alleged to have been for forty years before the act complained of in the declaration.-A replication of a life estate to a plea of enjoyment for forty years, under the statute 2 & 3 Will. 4, c. 71, must shew that the plaintiff is the person entitled to the reversion expectant on the determination of the life estate. [S. C. 1 Tyr. & Q. 375; 1 Gale, 410; 5 L. J. Kx. 107. Distinguished, Wilson v. Stanley, 1861, 12 Ir. C. L. R. 345. Referred to, HaUiits v. Vemey, [884, 13 Q. B. D. 306; Gardner v. Hodgsuit's Kingston Brewery Company, [1900] I Ch. 596; Colls v. Home and Colonial Stores, [1904] A. C. 190.] Case for an injury to the plaintiff's reversionary interest. The first count of the declaration stated that, before and at the time of committing the grievances by the defendants thereinafter mentioned, certain closes, pieces or parcels of land, hereditaments, and premises, with the appurtenances, of and belonging to the plaintiffs, commonly called and known by the name of Llaethdu, situate and being at the parish of Aralwch, in the county of Anglesey, together with a certain pool or pond of water then being in and upon one of the said closes and pieces or parcels of land of the said plaintiffs, were in the possession and occupation of certain persons, as tenants thereof to them the said plaintiffs, the reversion of and in the said closes, &c., expectant on the termination of the said tenancy, then and still belonging to the said plaintiffs, which gaid pool or pond of water, from time whereof the memory of man is not to the contrary, hath been and still of right ought to he fed and supplied with water from and by a certain stream or watercourse, and which during all the time aforesaid ran and flowed, and still of right ought to run and flow, unto, into, over, and along the said closes, &c., unto and into the said pond or- pool of water, the water of which stream or watercourse, and of the said pool or1 pond of water so situate and being in and upon one of the said closes, &c., was, during all the time aforesaid, of great use, benefit, and advantage to the said plaintiff's and others, the owners of the said closes, &c., and their tenants thereof for the time being, for irrigating, watering, and improving the soil of the said closes, &c., yet the defendants, contriving, &c., to injure the plaintiffs in their reversionary estate and interest of and in the said closes, &c., and the said pool or pond of water so situate and being in one of the said closes as aforesaid, whilst the [78] said closes, &c., were so in the possession and occupation of the said tenants thereof to the said plaintiffs as aforesaid, and whilst the said plaintiffs were so interested therein as aforesaid, heretofore and before the commencement of this suit, to wit, on the 1st of January, 1833, made and sunk, and caused to be made and sunk, in and upon certain lands and premises contiguous and near to the said closes, &c., of the said plaintiffs, and near to the said stream or watercourse, from and by which the said pool or pond of water so situate in and upon one of the said closes, &c., of the said plaintiffs as aforesaid, was during all the time aforesaid, EX-'DlV. VL-12 354 WRIGHT V. WILLIAMS 1 M. & W. 79. and still of right ought to he, fed and supplied as aforesaid, divers to \vifc, ten precipitate pits, ten other pits, ten holes, arid divers other works, and put, placed, and laid into the said several pits, holes, and works, divers large quantities of iron and other metals and metallic substances, and then covered the said iron and other metals and metallic substances with water, in the said pits, holes, and worlcs, and kept and continued the said iron and other metals and metallic substances so covered with water in the said pits, &c., for divers long spaces of time their next following, whereby the said water therein became and was mixed and impregnated with iron and other metallic arid noxious mineral substances, and afterwards, to wit, on &c., and on divers other days, &c., wrongfully and injuriously let off, emptied, and discharged the said water so mixed and impregnated with iron and other metallic and noxious mineral substances as aforesaid, from and out of the said pits, holes, and works, unto and into the said stream or watercourae so running and flowing into, through, over1, and along the said closes, &o., of the said plaintiffs, and from and by which the said pool or pond of water was, and still of right ought to be, fed and supplied as aforesaid, whereby the water of the said stream or watercourse, and of the said pool or pond so situate in and [79] upon one of the said closes, &c., of the said plaintiffs as aforesaid, and so fed and supplied by and from the said stream or watercourse as aforesaid, became and waa impregnated with the said metallic and noxious mineral substances with which the water so let off, emptied, and discharged by the said defendants from and out of the said pits, holes, and works, into the said stream or watercourse as aforesaid, was so mixed and impregnated as aforesaid, and the banks and edges of the said part of the said stream or watercourse so running and Mowing into, through, over, and along the said closes, &c., of the said plaintiffs as aforesaid, and of the said pool or pond of water so situate and being in and upon one of the said closes, &c., of the said plaintiffs, became and were covered, and the bottom and bed of the said pool or pond of water became, and was, and still is, choked and filled up with a certain noxious sediment, stratum, or deposit arising from the settling of the said metallic and noxious mineral substances with which the said water so let off', emptied, and discharged by the said defendants, from the said pits, holes, and works as aforesaid, were so mixed and impregnated as aforesaid, arid by reason of the bottom and bed of the said pool or pond of water so being choked and filled up with the said noxious sediment, stratum, and deposit as aforesaid, the water thereof so mixed and impregnated with the said metallic and noxious mineral substance as aforesaid, overflowed and inundated a great part, to wit, 100 acres of the said closes, &c., of the said plaintiff's, by reason of all which said several premises, the said closes, etc., and the soil thereof, have been and are greatly impoverished and deteriorated, and the reversionary estate and interest of the said plaintiffs of and in the same hath been arrd is, by means of the premises, very much injured, &c. There was another count, not substantially differing from the first. The defendants pleaded-First, not guilty. Secondly, [80] that before and at the time of the committing of the grievances, &c,, the Most Noble Henry William, Marquis of Anglesey, was the occupier of the said lands and premises in and upon which the said pits, holes, and works were so made arrd sunk, as in the first count mentioned, and was also the occupier of a certain mine, to wit, a copper mine, on the said land and premises, arid which said mine, for a period exceeding the period of forty years next before the commencement of this suit, and also at the time of the committing of the said grievances, had beerr and was worked by the occupier thereof for the time being. And the defendants further say, that the said Marquis, and all the occupiers for the time being of the said mine, and of the said land and premises wherein the said pits, holes, and works were so made and sunk as in the first count mentioned, for the full period of forty years next before the commencement of this suit, have without interruption, and as of right, made and sunk, and caused to be made and Bunk, in and upon the said lands and premises, such pits, holes, and works, as from time to time were convenient and necessary for placing therein the water from time to time raised or pumped out of the said mine, and for the precipitation of the copper contained in the said water; and the said Marquis, and all the occupiers for the time being of the said mine, lands, and premises, for the purpose of such precipitation of the copper contained in the water so from time to time raised and pumped out of the said mine, have from time to time, for and during all the said period of forty years, without interruption, and as of right, put, placed, and laid into the said pits, 1M. &W.81. WRIGHT V. WILLIAMS 355 holes, and works, such iron and other metals and metallic substances as to them seemed convenient and necessary, and there, in the said pits, holes, and works, covered the same with the water from time to time raised and pumped out of the said mine, and caused to run and flow into the same pits, holes, and works, and have kept and continued the said iron and [81] other metals and metallic substances so put, placed, and laid, and so covered with the said water, in the said pits, holes, and works, for such long spaces of time as to them seemed convenient and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Hanna v Pollock
-
Yard v Ford
...be reckoned up to the commencement of the suit and not up to the act complained of. 3 Bing. N. 0. 52, Jones v. Price. 3 Scott, 376, S. C. 1 M. & W. 77, Wright v. Williams. 7 A. & E. 698, Richards v. Fry. 3 N. & M. 67, S. C. (though in pleading it will suffice to aver the period to have been......
-
Hanna v Pollock
...years' enjoyment and the language of the Act, especially in sect. 8, relating to an enjoyment for that period. (l) 1 C. M. & R. 211. (2) 1 M. & W. 77. Vol. II.] QUEEN'S BUNCH DIVISION. 677 In this he anticipated the decision in Beggan v. M'Donald (1), Appeal. and he limited the effect of Br......
-
Lane and Another v Bennett
...of the four seas, or made part of the realm of England. And this view of the case is sanctioned by the 7th clause in 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 42, 1M.&W. 77. WRIGHT V. WILLIAMS 353 which is an enacting and not a declaratory clause; and shews the opinion of the Legislature, that without such a claus......