« EelmineJätka »
WATER--Continued. deliver into a certain stream a given quantity of compensation water per minute, duri certain hours on every working day, by means of a pipe laid from one of their reservoirs ; a provides that in case of neglect on the part of the corporation, by or in consequence of whi the statutory quantity of water is not delivered, the corporation shall, for every day on whi the neglect occurs, pay to the occupiers of each of the mills and works affected thereby, w may sue for the same, the sum of £5, and also make compensation for any damage sustain by such occupiers, or any of them, in respect of which such penalties are an insufficie compensation.
In actions brought by the occupiers of certain mills and works to recover penalties and the above provisions in respect of a failure on the part of the corporation to deliver ti statutory quantity of compensation water, which actions were consolidated and tried togeth it appeared that the pipe for the delivery of the water had for many years delivered the prop quantity of water, but that on the days in respect of which the penalties were claimed it à not deliver the proper quantity of water, though there was a head of water in the reserve sufficient to cause the necessary quantity to flow through the pipe if it was properly laid ar was not obstructed. It was also proved by experts called on behalf of the plaintiffs that pip of the character of that in question are liable to become obstructed by some kind of depo after being in use for many years. The defendants failed to prove what the cause of ti shortage of water was, or to prove that they had taken any steps to inspect or clean the pip
Held, that there was ample evidence to justify a finding of the jury that the shortage water was due to neglect on the part of the corporation ; and, semble, this would have bet so even in the absence of the expert evidence given by the plaintiffs to suggest a cause of ti shortage, as the shortage of water was in itself evidence of neglect on the part of the corporatio sufficient to throw on them the burden of disproving neglect on their part.
Held also, that the liability of the corporation to penalties was not limited to one penalty ! £5 for each day during which the shortage of water continued ; but that they were liable i that sum for each day to each of the plaintiffs.--Lewis v. Swansea Corporation (1887), 4 Tim L. R. 122, 706, distinguished.
BEAUMONT and OTHERS v. HUDDERSFIELD CORPORATION.
WATER CLOSETS.--See SANITARY CONVENIENCES.
See RIVER POLLUTION (2).
See FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS (1).