Geddis v Proprietors of Bann Reservoir

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 18 February 1878
• Date: 18 February 1878
• Court: Exchequer Division (Ireland)

Exch. Cham.

Before MORRIS, C. J., PALLES, C. B., KEOGH J., FITZGERALD, and DEASY, BB., LAWSON, J., and DOWSE, B.

GEDDIS

and

THE BANN RESERVOIR COMPANY.

Dunne v. The Birmingham Canal Navigation CompanyELRELR L. R. 7 Q. B. 244; L. R. 8 Q. B. 42.

Mason v. The Shrewsbury and Hereford Railway CompanyELR L. R. 6 Q. B. 578.

Cracknell v. The Lord Mayor and Corporation of ThetfordELR L. R. 4 C. P. 629.

Smith v. FletcherELR L. R. 9 Ex. 64.

Doe d. Egremont v. Williams 11 Q. B. 688, 700.

Lawrence v. The Great Northern Railway Company 16 Q. B. 643.

Robbins v. JonesENR 15 C. B. (N. S.) 221.

Williams v. GroucottENR 4 B. & S. 149.

The King v. The Inhabitants of County KentENR 13 East, 220.

The King v. The Inhabitants of LindseyENR 14 East, 317.

Nicholl v. AllenENR 1 B. & S. 916.

Winch v. The Conservators of The ThamesELRELR L. R. 7 C. P. 458; L. R. 9 C. P. 378.

Boughton v. The Midland Great Western Railway CompanyUNK Ir. R. 7 C. L. 170.

bagnall v. The London & North-Western Railway CompanyENR 7 H. & N. 423.

Pigot v. The Eastern Countries Railway Co.ENR 3 C. B. 241.

Dunne v. The Birmingham Canal Navigation Co.ELRELR L. R. 7 Q. B. 244; L. R. 8 Q. B. 42.

Boughton v. The Midland Gt. W. Railway CompanyUNK Ir. R. 7 c. L. 169.

Cracknell v. Thye Mayor and Corporation of ThetfordELR L. R. 4 C. P. 629.

Pomfret v. RicroftENR 1 Wms. Saund. 320 [557, Ed. 1871.]

Parliamentary powers Works executed in due exercise of them Damage arising therefrom Non-liability for.

160 THE IRISH REPORTS. [I. R. Exch. Man. 1876. (EXCHEQUER CHAMBER) (1). GEDDIS v. THE BANN RESERVOIR COMPANY. June 2, 3, 13. Parliamentary powers-Works executed in due exercise of them--Damage arising therefrom-Non-liability for. The Defendants were authorised by their Special Act (6 & 7 Win. 4, c. xcv.) to construct a reservoir, to divert into it the water of the River Muddoek and of other streams, and from the reservoir to supply, through the channel of the Muddock, sufficient water to enable the mills on the River Bann to be worked at all seasons of the year; and these works they executed without negligence and in the due exercise of their parliamentary powers : in consequence of these works, the channel of the Muddoek, passing near the Plaintiffs land, became-choked and, for want of cleansing, incapable of discharging the increased volume of water so sent through it, and the Plaintiff's land was thereby flooded and injured :-Held-reversing the decision of the Queen's Bench-(PALLEs, C. B., and FITZGERALD, B., diss.), that there was no obligation on the DefenÂÂdants to cleanse the channel of the river. APPEAL by the Defendants against an order of the Queen's. Bench discharging a conditional order to enter a verdict for the-Defendants pursuant to leave reserved. Action to recover damages for injuries done to the Plaintiff's. lands by floodings caused by the alleged negligence of the DefenÂÂdants in the management of their reservoir waterworks at Lough_ Island Reavy, and of their `„watercourse, being in part the bed of the River Muddock leading from the reservoir to the River Bann. The plaint contained three counts : (1). That the Defendants wrongfully caused divers large quantities of water to flow over and upon the Plaintiff's lands. (2). That the:Defendants were possessed of a reservoir at a place called Lough Island Reavy, for the storage of water, and were also possessed of a watercourse, to wit, the River Muddoek running by and in close proximity to- a close of the Plaintiff, to wit, the lands in the first count mentioned, for eon (1) Before Mortars, C. J., PALLES, DOWSE, B., was absent during the C. B., KEOGH, J., FrrzeEnALD and delivery of the judgments, but conÂÂDEISY, BB., LswsoN, J., and eurred with the majority of the Court DOWSE, B. VOL. XL] COMMON LAW SERIES. 161 veying water from the reservoir; and the Defendants so negligently, unskil- Exch. Chant. fully and improperly managed the said reservoir and the water therein, and the 1876. works in connexion therewith, and said watercourse, that divers large quanti Grams ties of water from the said reservoir so conveyed by and through said. water- v. E course flowed against, upon, and over the Plaintiff's said close, whereby large Tn BANN RESER portions of the said land were washed away and destroyed, and other large COMPANY. VOIR portions thereof were permanently damaged by flooding, and other large porÂÂtions were permanently injured by being swampy and unfit for agriculture, whereby divers crops of the Plaintiff growing upon his said land were damaged, and part of said crops were wholly lost to the Plaintiff. (3). That before, &c., the Plaintiff was possessed of lands, &c., and the Defendants were possessed of a watercourse, by the Defendants artificially conÂÂstructed, and flowing by and past the said farm and lands of the Plaintiff ; and it thereupon became and was the duty of the Defendants, by reason of their possession of said easement as aforesaid, to scour, cleanse, and keep free from obstruction the bed and channel through which the water of said watercourse flowed, when and so often as it had been, or should or might be, necessary to prevent the water from time to time being in said watercourse from being penned back, hindered and impeded from flowing in and along the same, and also to prevent it running out of the same into; upon or over the Plaintiff's said land ; and it also became and was the duty of the Defendants, by reason of their possession of said easement, to repair and make good the banks and sides of said watercourse when and so often as same became and were out of repair, and to prevent the said banks and sides from becoming dilapidated, undermined and carried away by the water in said watercourse ; yet the Defendants, neglecting their duty in that behalf, did not cleanse, scour and keep free from obstruction the bed and channel of said watercourse, and did not repair and make good the banks and sides of the said watercourse when and so often as it became and was necessary respectively as aforesaid so to do, and did not preÂÂvent the said banks and sides of said watercourse from becoming dilapidated, undermined and carried away.-Averment, that by reason of the premises the waters in the said watercourse were, at divers times heretofore, and still were, penned back, hindered and impeded from running and flowing in and upon the same, and ran out of the same into, upon and over the Plaintiff's said land, whereby, &c. The defences were : To first count (1), Traverse of the acts complained of : (2), That the Waters mentioned flowed over and upon the Plaintiff's land, as therein mentioned, out of the bed or course of the River Muddock, flowing through and past the lands of the Plaintiff, and that such flowing was not caused or occasioned by the Defendants further or otherwise than in this-that the Defendants caused waters to flow into said bed or course out of a reservoir of the Defendants called Lough Island Reavy reservoir; and the Defendants aver that they so caused said waters to flow.by the authority and in due execution of the statu .Exch. Chum. tory powers given to and vested in them by the statute 6 & 7 Wm. 4, e. 95, 1876. being an Act passed for the providing an abundant and more regular supply of water in the river called the Upper Bann, in Ireland, and without any negli- GEDDIS v. gene on the part of the Defendants ; and the Defendants further aver that THE BANN said waters flowed from and out of the said bed or course of the River Ma- RESERVOIR dock over, upon, in and about the farm and land of the Plaintiff, without any COMPANY. - negligence or default on the Defendants' part. To the second count-(1), Traverse of negligence : (2), That the Defendants were not possessed of the watercourse. To the third count-(1), That the Defendants were not possessed of a waterÂÂcourse flowing by and past the farm and lands of the Plaintiff : (2), That the watercourse was not artificially constructed, as alleged : (3), Admitting for the purposes of this plea that the Defendants were guilty of the breaches of duty therein complained of, that it was not by reason thereof that the injuries and damages in third count mentioned were occasioned : (4), That the waterÂÂcourse in third count mentioned was and is the River Muddock in the aforesaid. second plea mentioned, and that the only portion thereof which flows by and past the farm and lands of the Plaintiff is the ancient course or channel of said river, and is not artificially constructed, nor are the Defendants possessed thereof further or otherwise than that they are entitled by the statute in the second plea mentioned to have this water passing through the same allowed to-pass without obstruction through such ancient stream or channel; and the only portion of said river or watercourse which is artificially constructed, as averred, is a portion thereof situated higher up, and at a great distance from the land of the Plaintiff.-Averment, that the Defendants did cleanse, scour, and keep free from obstruction the bed and channel of the said portion so artificially conÂÂstructed, and they did repair and make good the banks and sides of said portion when and so often as it became necessary, as in said count mentioned, and did prevent the banks and sides of said portion becoming dilapidated, undermined or carried away. To all the counts : That the several causes of action therein sued upon arose-and. were occasioned by, and are declared on, for and in respect of things done in pursuance of the said statute of the 6 & 7 Win. 4, c. scv., in said second plea mentioned, and not otherwise ; and that said several causes of action did not accrue within two years before the commencement of this suit. The case was originally tried before LAWSON, J., at the Down Summer Assizes, 1873, and resulted in a verdict for the Defendants, which was set aside in Easter Term, 1874, by the Court of Queen's. Bench, on the grounds of...