district (2) only where they have laid down communication pipes, and paid or tendered the water rate (a) payable in respect thereof.

399; 67 J. P. 430; 2 L. G. R. 80, C. A. As to unlawfully refixing a pipe which had been cut off, see Kyffin v. Metropolitan Water Board, 72 J. P. 517. There is no obligation on a water company to exercise the powers given by section 74 of cutting off the supply of water to premises as a condition precedent to their right to recover arrears of water rate: R. v. Hutton; Metropolitan Water Board, Er parte, [1907] 2 K. B. 578; 76 L. J. K. B. 1001. See, too, Purnell v. Wolverhampton New Waterworks Co., 10 C. B. (N.S.) 576; Weale v. West Middlesex Waterworks Co., 1 J. & W. 358; 21 R. R. 183; West Middlesex Waterworks Co. v. Suerkrop, 4 C. & P. 87; Cardiff (Mayor of) v. Cardiff Waterworks Co., 5 Jur. (N.s.) 953; Bateman v. Ashton-under-Lyne, 27 L. J. Ex. Ch. 458; 3 H. & N. 323; see also Industrial Dwellings Co. v. East London Water Co., 58 J. P. 430; as to an injunction to restrain cutting of of water for non-payment of water rate, see Hayward v. East London Waterworks, 28 Ch. D. 138; 54 L. J. Ch. 523, and post, p. 339, n. (h).

(2) A water company who supplied water from unfenced reservoirs without filtration fed by streams receiving drainage from farmyards held not to be supplying pure and wholesome water: Att.-Gen. v. Rhymney and Aber Valley Gas and Water Co. (1907), 71 J. P. 435. Where under bye-laws made under a special Act, the undertakers, at the consumer's request and cost, laid down lead service and communication pipes between their mains and the plaintiff's house, which pipes were entirely under the control of the undertakers, and the water, which was pure and wholesome, in the mains became contaminated by the lead and poisoned the plaintiff, the House of Lords held, affirming the Court of Appeal, that the undertakers were not liable: Milnes v. Huddersfield Corporation, 11 A. C. 511; 56 L. J. Q. B. 1; 55 L. T. 617. S. C. in Court of Appeal, 12 Q. B. D. 443. As to supply of pure and wholesome water under a contract by a water company, see Shaw's Water Co. v. Greenock Magistrates, 2 Macq. H. L. 151.

(y) As to what are domestic purposes," see Busby v. Chesterfield Waterworks, E. B. & E. 176; 27 L. J. M. C. 174; Barnard Castle District Council v. Wilson, [1902] 2 Ch. 946; 71 L. J. Ch. 825; 87 L. T. 279; 51 W. R. 102, C. A.; and ante, Chap. III., p. 120. A supply to a fixed bath held to be water for "domestic purposes "under a special Act: Weaver v. Cardiff Corporation, 48 L. T. 906; held not to be water for domestic purposes under a special Act: Walker v. Lambeth Waterworks Co., 63 L. J. Ch. 374; 8 R. 622; 71 L. T. 75 (1894). A "workhouse is a house entitled to a supply for domestic purposes": Liskeard Union v. Liskeard Waterworks Co., 7 Q. B. D. 505; but it is not a private dwelling-house: Bristol Guardians v. Bristol Waterworks Co., [1914] A. C. 379 (as to what are domestic purposes in a workhouse, see Chester Waterworks Co. v. Chester Union (1908), 72 J. P. 121); so is a boarding-house" Pidgeon v. Great Yarmouth Water Co., [1902] 1 K. B. 310; 71 L. J. K. B. 61; 85 L. T. 632; 66 J. P. 309; 18 T. L. R. 97; so is a school : South West Suburban Water Co. v. St. Marylebone Guardians, [1904] 2 K. B. 174; 73 L. J. K. B. 347; 52 W. R. 378; 68 J. P. 257; 2 L. G. R. 567; 20 T. L. R. 299: Frederick v. Bognor Water Co., [1909] 1 Ch. 149; 78 L. J. Ch. 48; 72 J. P. 501; 25 T. L. R. 31; as to a post office: Postmaster-General v. Nenagh Urban District Council, [1913] 1 Ir. R. 238; but water supplied to a school swimming bath where a fee was charged for the use of the bath and a swimming master kept is not water supplied for domestic purposes": Barnard Castle District Council v. Wilson, [1902] 2 Ch. 746; 71 L. J. Ch. 825; 87 L. T. 279; 51 W. R. 102, C. A., reversing Buckley, J., [1901] 2 Ch. 813. Water supplied to and used by a medical man for washing a motor car used for the purposes of his profession is: Harrogate Corporation v. Mackay, [1907] 2 K. B. 611; 76 L. J. K. B. 977; 97 L. T. 689; 71 J. P. 458; 5 L. G. R. 876; 23 T. L. R. 632. Water supplied by agreement for domestic use and the washing of carts, as well as in the case of fire, but not for street washing or sewer flushing, held not to include water for trade purposes: Andrews v. Witts & Holly (1901), 84 L. T. 124; 65 J. P. 281; 19 Cox, C. C. 633. Washing a yard made dirty by carrying on a trade is not a domestic use: Cambridge University and Town Waterworks Co. v. Hancock, 103 L. T. 562. Occupier of a dwelling-house used as a beer-house is not bound

(z) (a) See notes, (z) (a), p. 336.

Any owner or occupier wishing to have water from the waterworks brought into his premises is empowered by the Act of 1847, upon

to be supplied with water otherwise than by measure: Barrett v. Ilkeston Corporation, [1917] 1 K. B. 827. A supply for farming purposes does not include domestic purposes: Ilkeston Corporation v. Fretwell, 80 J. P. Journ. 4; Hadham Rural District Council v. Crallan, [1914] 2 Ch. 138. Water supplied for sanitary conveniences at gas works under the Factory and Workshops Act, 1901, is water for "domestic purposes under the Metropolitan Water Board (Clauses) Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7. c. clxxi.), ss. 8, 9, 13, 16, 25; South Suburban Gas Co. v. Metropolitan Water Board, [1909] 2 Ch. 666; 79 L. J. Ch. 27; 101 L. T. 560; 73 J. P. 505; 26 T. L. R. 12. See also South West Suburban Water Co. v. Marylebone Union, [1904] 2 K. B. 174, 179; Frederick v. Bognor Water Co., [1909] 1 Ch. 149, 157. As to what is a water closet, see Roberts V. South Essex Water Co. (1903), 67 J. P. 404; 1 L. G. R. 719.

(z) This does not apply to water in bulk: Wombwell Urban District Council v. Dearne Valley Water Co. (1907), 71 J. P. 415; 5 L. G. R. 1132.

(a) Section 3 of 10 & 11 Vict. c. 17 defines water rate as any rent reward, or payment to be made to the undertakers for a supply of water." See Sheffield Waterworks Co. v. Wilkinson, supra. With regard to the charges of water companies, it may be noted here that rent has been held to mean actual value where payment of rents is dependent on it. In Sheffield Water Co. v. Bennett (1873), L. R. 8 Ex. 196, the defendant was the owner of various tenements, for which he paid poor rates, water rates, &c. By their Act the plaintiffs were bound to supply houses within a certain district with water at following rate per annum-i.e., where the rent was £7, at not exceeding 6 per cent. Held, that in estimating the rents, defendant was entitled to deduct the rates so paid by him (affirming the same case in L. R. 7 Ex. 409). See, too, Sidebottom v. Glossop Reservoir, 1 Ex. 611 (Ex. Ch.); Rook v. Liverpool (Mayor of), 7 C. B. (N.s.) 240. A water Company under their special Act held not to be bound to charge for water at an equal rate in the pound to all consumers in the absence of any express provision to that effect Northampton Corporation v. Ellen, [1904] 1 K. B. 299; 73 L. J. K. B. 829; 90 L. T. 71; 52 W. R. 305; 68 J. P. 197; 2 L. G. R. 473; 20 T. L. R. 168, C. A. Where a company are allowed to supply water on terms to be agreed upon, a customer wanting water for domestic purposes cannot demand to be supplied at a rate calculated on the yearly value of the house: Pitts v. Plymouth Corporation, [1913] 3 K. B. 301. A trustee in bankruptcy has been held not to be liable for arrears of water rate under section 48 of the Metropolis Water Act, 1871 (34 & 35 Vict. c. 113), and entitled to recover from the water company the amount he had paid under protest. In re Flack; Ex parte Berry, [1900] 2 Q. B. 32; 69 L. J. Q. B. 258; 82 L. T. 503; 48 W. R. 446; 7 Manson, 141. See also In re Mannesmann Tube Co.; Von Siemens v. Mannesmann Tube Co., [1901] 2 Ch. 93; 70 L. J. Ch. 565; 84 L. T. 579. Annual value and annual rack rent or value" for the purposes of water rate means net annual value or rateable value,' not gross estimated rental": Dobbs v. Grand Junction Waterworks Co., 9 A. C. 49; 53 L. J. Q. B. 50; 49 L. T. 541; Warrington Waterworks Co. v. Longshaw, 9 Q. B. D. 145; 51 L. J. Q. B. 498; 46 L. T. 815; Wilkinson v. Bury Water Board (1905), 92 L. T. 417; 69 J. P. 214; 3 L. G. R. 715. Annual rack rent and value' held to mean gross estimated rental under the Bristol Waterworks Acts, 1862, 1865 (Bristol Waterworks Co. v. Uren, 15 Q. B. D. 637; 54 L. J. M. C. 97; 52 L. T. 655), and the Barnet Gas and Water Act, 1872 (Stevens v. Barnet Gas and Water Co., 57 L. J. M. C. 82); under Woking Water and Gas Act, 1881 (Woking Water and Gas Co. v. Parker, [1916] 1 K. B. 473; 85 L. J. K. B. 876). For definition of annual value under the Water Rate Definition Act, 1885 (48 & 49 Vict. c. 34), see post, p. 347, n. (1). See also as to voids and owner compounding for rates," Smith V. Birmingham Corporation, 11 Q. B. D. 195; 52 L. J. M. C. 81; 49 L. T. 25; R. v. Melladew, [1907] 1 K. B. 192; 76 L. J. K. B. 262; Bootle Overseets v. Liverpool Warehouse Co., 85 L. T. 45; as to annual value of a public-house, see West Middlesex Waterworks Co. v. Coleman, or Coleman v. West Middlesex Waterworks Co., 14 Q. B. D. 529; 54 L. J. M. C. 70; 52 L. T. 578; as to gardens, see Bristol Waterworks Co. v. Uren, 15 Q. B. D. 637; 54 L. J. M. C. 97; 52 L. T. 655; Grand Junction Waterworks Co. v. Davies, [1897] 2 Q. B. 209; 66 L. J. Q. B. 633; 76 L. T. 833. For cases as to recovery of water rates, see East London Water Co. v. Kyffin, [1895]

paying or tendering the portion of water rate in respect of such premises, by that or the special Act directed to be paid in advance, to open the ground (having first obtained the consent of the owners and occupiers thereof) between the pipes of the company and his premises, and lay any leaden or other pipes from such premises, to communicate with the pipes of the undertakers. . The connection of the service pipes with the company's pipes must be made under the superintendence of their surveyor, and two days' notice of the hour and day when such connection is to be made, must be given to the company. . Any person who either has laid down service pipes, or has become the proprietor of them, is entitled to remove the same at any time after giving six days' notice in writing to the company; and he must make compensation to the company for any injury or damage to their pipes or works caused by such removal. For the purpose, whether of laying or of removing such service pipes, any owner or occupier is entitled to open or break up so much of the pavement of any street as shall be between the pipes of the company and his house, building, or premises, or any sewer or drain therein," but doing as little damage as possible. The owners of all dwelling-houses, or parts of dwelling-houses, occupied as separate tenements, where the annual value does not exceed £10, are liable to the payment of the water rates, instead of the occupiers thereof (b).

Parts of towns and districts not supplied with water are empowered to demand a supply from companies under the Act of

1 Q. B. 55; 64 L. J. M. C. 52; 15 R. 38; 71 L. T. 615; East London Water Co. v. Charles, [1894] 2 Q. B. 730; 63 L. J. M. C. 209; 10 R. 435; 71 L. T. 200; East London Water Co. v. Kellerman, [1892] 2 Q. B. 72; 67 L. T. 319; Badcock v. Hunt, 22 Q. B. D. 145; 58 L. J. Q. B. 134; 60 L. T. 314; Chelsea Water Co. v. Paulet, 52 J. P. 724; Lea v. Abergavenny Improvement Commissioners, 16 Q. B. D. 18; 53 L. T. 728; Richards v. West Middlesex Water Co., 15 Q. B. D. 660; 54 L. J. Q. B. 551; Southend Water Co. v. Howard, 13 Q. B. D. 215; Whiting v. East London Water Co., 1 Cab. & E. 331; Direct Spanish Telegraph Co. v. Shepherd, 13 Q. B. D. 202; 53 L. J. Q. B. 420; 51 L. T. 124; Bourne & Tant v. Salmon, [1907] 1 Ch. 616; 76 L. J. Ch. 374; 96 L. T. 629; 71 J. P. 329, C. A.; Meadows v. Grand Junction Waterworks (1905), 3 L. G. R. 910; 69 J. P. 255; 20 T. L. R. 583; Handcock v. Folkestone Waterworks, 1 T. L. R. 329; Slater v. Burnley Corporation, 59 L. T. 636; Colne Valley Water Co. v. Treherne, 50 L. T. 617; Elliot v. Russell, [1902] 2 K. B. 748; 72 L. J. K. B. 15; 86 L. T. 204; Ruabon Water Co. v. Evans (1906), 22 T. L. R. 541; Metropolitan Water Board v. Bunn, [1913] 1 K. B. 134; 82 L. J. K. B. 1024.

(b) Michael & Will (6th ed.), pp. 69 et seq., 378 et seq. See Ward v Folkestone Water Co., 24 Q. B. D. 334; 62 L. T. 321, as to screwdown valves to prevent waste. As to unoccupied houses under this section, see British Empire Assurance Co. v. Southwark and Vauxhall Co., 59 L. T. 321; East London Water Co. v. Foulkes, [1894] 1 Q. B. 819; 10 R. 243. Where a house is let to a tenant at a rent not exceeding £10 a year so that the owner is liable under section 72 of the Waterworks Clauses Act, 1847, to pay water rates, the owner is a person supplied with water within the meaning of a special Act, and under a duty to take care that the water is not wasted: Brock v. Harrison, [1899] 1 Q. B. 958; 80 L. T. 568; 68 L. J. Q. B. 730.

L.W.

44

22

1847, if they comply with certain regulations; and a penalty is imposed on the company on their neglect or refusal to supply (c). The undertakers are bound to keep a supply of water for public purposes; such as fire plugs (d), cleansing sewers, drains, &c., and for supplying public pumps. They are also authorised to provide a supply for trade and other purposes; and special regulations are made for the case where companies are employed to supply by meter (e). The Act of 1847 entitles them to the payment of water rates by those requiring a supply of water; but it also strictly limits their profits (f). By both the Waterworks Clauses Acts, the waste of water is prohibited by strict pro

(c) As to exemption of a company on account of drought or unavoidable cause, see Industrial Dwellings Co. v. East London Water Co., 58 J. P. 430; and ante, p. 334, note. As to "refusal to supply where the consumer has neglected to repair, see Grand Junction Waterworks Co. v. Rodocanachi, post, p. 348, n. (n). As to time when owner or occupier is liable for the rate : Metropolitan Water Board v. Bibbey, [1911] 2 K. B. 78; 80 L. J. K. B. 977. As to duty of consumer to repair pipes, see Colne Valley Water Co. v. Hall (1907), 72 J. P. 25, C. A.; 6 L. G. R. 115. In the absence of evidence of ownership, see Parnell v. Portsmouth Waterworks, 8 L. G. R. 1029. The

word " premises in section 70 of the East London Waterworks Act, 1853 (16 & 17 Vict. c. clxvi.), has been held not to include land for building operations so as to make a water company liable to a conviction for neglecting to afford a supply of water for those purposes: Metropolitan Water Board v. Paine, [1907] 1 K. B. 285; 76 L. J. K. B. 151; 96 L. T. 63.

(d) As to this, see Reg. on the prosecution of the Wells Urban Sanitary Authority v. Wells Water Co., 55 L. T. 188; Grand Junction Waterworks Co. v. Brentford Local Board, 2 Q. B. 735; 63 L. J. Q. B. 717; 9 R. 788; 71 L. T. 240. As to the right of a water company to compensation for water used for extinguishing fire from a fire plug on private property, see Weardale and Consett Water Co. v. Chester-le-Street Co-operative Society, [1904] 2 K. B. 240; 73 L. J. K. B. 659; 91 L. T. 293; 52 W. R. 84; 68 J. P. 386; 2 L. G. R. 808; 20 T. L. R. 464. As to the right of a water company to use hydrants for other purposes than the extinction of fire, see London County Council v. East London Water Co., [1900] 1 Q. B. 330; 69 L. J. Q. B. 304; 82 L. T. 268; 48 W. R. 252.

(e) As to supply by meter of water for other than domestic purposes and meaning of any consumer of water," and of "dwelling-house under the New River Co.'s Act, 1852, see Cooke v. New River Co., 14 A. C. 698; 59 L. J. Ch. 333; 61 L. T. 816; see also as to meters for baths, Sheffield Water Co. v. Bingham, 25 Ch. D. 443; 52 L. J. Ch. 624; 48 L. T. 604; Sheffield Water Co. v. Carter, 8 Q. B. D. 632; 51 L. J. M. C. 97. By section 41 of the New River Company's Act, the company shall, at the request of any consumer of water for purposes other than those in respect of which rates are charged, afford a supply by means of a meter, and charge the same at certain limited rates. The Metropolitan Board of Works demanded a supply of water by meter to water the Victoria Embankment during one-third of the year only :Held, that the defendants were not bound to supply it at the limited rates, but might claim rates fixed by section 37 of the Waterworks Clauses Act, 1847 : Metropolitan Board of Works v. New River Co., 37 L. T. (N.s.) 124.

(f) It is provided, that the profits to be divided among the undertakers in any year shall not exceed 10 per cent. on the paid-up capital, unless a larger dividend be at any time necessary to make up the deficiency of any previous dividend which shall have fallen short of that rate." Statutory provisions regulating the charges to be made may be modified by the Minister of Health: see Water Undertakings (Modification of Charges) Act, 1921 (11 & 12 Geo. 5. c. 44); Michael & Will (5th ed.), p. 348; see also Weymouth Waterworks Co. v. Coode and Hasell, [1911] 2 Ch. 520; 81 L. J. Ch. 11, as to calculation of back dividends on two classes of capital. Shares in waterworks are a legal estate and corporate inheritance: Townsend v. Ash, 3 A. C. 336.

visions (g). The undertakers are required to keep a copy of their special Act at their office, and to deposit another with the clerk of the peace or sheriff clerk as aforesaid, for the inspection of all persons interested therein (h).

(g) See note, ante, p. 337.

(h) Some of the principles regulating the duties of water companies may be Duties of here conveniently noticed. It is a primary duty where persons are by an Water ComAct of Parliament incorporated for a special purpose with full powers for panies. executing it, that the body thus created should from time to time take measures to prevent the occurrence of any inconvenience or injury which the effecting such purpose may occasion, not only in the original execution of the necessary works, but at recurring intervals.

Thus, where a company incorporated for supplying mill-owners on the Bann were empowered to make a reservoir, and to send the water, when necessary, down a special channel, and also to enter on the lands of different streams, and to scour the channels, it was held that they were responsible for damage caused by an overflow arising from their neglecting to keep the special channels scoured, since they were bound under the Act to see that the due execution of their works should not be injurious to the lands on the banks of the channel: Geddis V. Bann Reservoir, 3 A. C. 430, H. L. (Ir.); see ante, p. 284.

So, too, it is incumbent (under the Waterworks Clauses Act, 1847, s. 31) on a water company intending to break up roads to communicate beforehand the plan to the road authority, and this is sufficient to enable the road authority to judge whether it requires any modification, and it rests with the water company, in case of its disapproval, to apply for the determination of two justices before proceeding to commence operations: Edgemore Highway Board V. Colne Valley Water Co., 46 L. J. Ch. 889.

With regard to questions of compensation for injuries to land which may arise with reference to the Lands Clauses Act, 1845, a company would appear to be bound by the terms of their agreement, even though they fail to carry them out in entirety. On this point Stone v. Corporation of Yeovil (2 C. P. D. 99) is instructive. There the defendants, a water company, were empowered by an Act incorporating the Lands and Waterworks Clauses Acts to take, use and divert certain streams, and, amongst others, that of the plaintiff, a mill-owner. Defendants gave plaintiff notice of their intention to take all the stream, but actually took half only. To a statement of claim by the plaintiff for £939 permanent damages awarded to him by a surveyor for the abstraction of the whole stream, the defendants demurred, on the ground that they had no power to agree to make compensation for all the stream, but only for such damage as was done from time to time. It was held, however (affirming the decision in the Common Pleas Division), that they had such power, and that, having given notice of an intention to purchase the whole, they were bound to make compensation at once for all the interest of the mill in the stream. It was further held that, if the case was to be considered as one of injuriously affecting property, the statement showed a good agreement by a limited owner for permanent injury under sections 9 and 68.

In cases of disputes regarding the payment of rates, section 68 of the Waterworks Clauses Act, 1847, provides that the question of annual value is to be determined by two justices. This provision would appear to override anything to the contrary in any private Act incorporating it. Section 46 of the New River Act, which incorporates the Waterworks Clauses Act, enacted that nothing in this Act, or any Act incorporated therewith, is to prevent the company from recovering any sum not exceeding £50, due as water rates, &c., by an action as provided.' But it was held in The New River Co. v. Mather (L. R. 10 C. P. 442; 44 L. J. M. C. 105; 32 L. T. 658), that where a bona fide dispute as to value arises, the company, before they can sue, must obtain a decision of justices; and ante, p. 332, n. (s).

Closely connected with the duty incumbent on companies to prevent injury, noticed above, is the question of responsibility for mischief caused through negligence ante, pp. 150 et seq., 283 et seq.

In an action against a water company for so managing their pipes that they burst, and, water escaping, injured the plaintiff's premises, it was shown that there was an extraordinary frost, and that the turncock had examined the plug, and packed it with straw and ice on November 29: it was doubtful, however, whether he had looked at it after. It burst on December 29. Held,