CIVIL SITTINGS

Evening Star, Issue 3689, 19 July 1875, Page 2

CIVIL SITTINGS

MwfBAT, July 19

(Before Bis Honor Mr Justice Johnston and a Special Jutj.)

POLLUTION CASE. Glasspord v. Retd and Others.—Thu action, known ns the Tinkers [Jollution case, occupied the Court the whole day. The object of the case was to prevent defendants and others discharging wash dirt and other debris into'ihomsor.’s Creek, the property of the plaintiff, otherwise than by sufferance. Plaintiff, in his declaration, alleged that defendants, whose claim adjoined his, had fouled the creek in question, which ran through his laud, and claimed LI,OOO damages, He also applied for an injunction restraining them from polluting the stream for the future. Defendants denied ' all the material allegations, and pleaded further in mitigation of damages that others bad polluted the creek, and that the damage complained of wits in a great measure caused by plaintiff’s own acts* Messrs Macaeuey and Haggitt appeared for plaintiffs; Messrs Stout aud Smith defending. Mr Haggitt, in stating the case, said that plaintiff since May 6,1807, had been lawfully possessed of a parcel of land as a pre-emptive right on run 223 in this Province. The date in question was the time at which plaintiff become possessed of the land from which his rights as a freeholder take effect by means of a Crown Grant granted by Act of Parliament, 'ihe land on which the tailings were worked was flat beyond which the ground gradually rose up the west channel of'the land. When the plaintiff purchased the land and previous to that time, Thomson’s creek was a creek running clearly and within well-defined boundaries, and the waters were confined to the stream, and never flooded except at flood time, but ran flatly, the land being glassed iown to the very margin of the stream. The defendants’ gold-mining claim was situated above that of plaintiff s, and . ejfendunts’ had been ra n’ng for a consider ble time, some as far hack as 1865 Then they merely miu< d by BManrof a cradle: they had not adopt<4 tie sluicing principle, by which means the race was now worked, .md widen was the cause of the damage complained of in the declaration. Owing to the alleged fouling by defendants of plaintiff’s property the laud had risen to the height of forty ur ftity yards instead of fourteen or fifteen feet. Previous to this action being taken, he (Mr Haggitt) wrote to defendants namely, ou May 12, 1874 requesting them to cease sending their tailings down Thompson’s Creek, is the effect of their so doing had been to raise the bed of the creek to such an extent us to cause Mr Glassford te entertain fears that his property would be destroyed in case of flood. He further stated that un esa defendants cased within fourteen days to all >w their tailings to run into Thomson’s Creek, plaintiff would be compelled to apply for an injunction restraining them fiom so doing. No answer was received to that request, and defendants seemed to have taken no notice of the letter. A case of a sin ilar natuie had lately been decided in the Court of Appeal, and the opinion given by the Court was in favor of the case established by the present plaintiff. They oid not desire vindictive damages—thev merely asked for substantial damages -such damages as might be sufficient to indicate to defendants and others plaintiff’s right against persons polluting the stream. Defendants were the only persons who polluted the stream—no others fouled it to such an extent as to cause plaintiff to complain, for although they might send dirty water down the stream, they did not do so as to sufficiently injure plaintiff’s laud. [Left sitting.]