View report page

35
AN ABSTRACT OF THE JUDGMENT
of
THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,
in the suit op
STAINTON V. THE METROPOLITAN BOARD OP WORKS AND THE
BOARD OF WORKS FOR THE LEWISHAM DISTRICT.
This suit was originally instituted against the Metropolitan Board of
Works, and subsequently against that Board and the Lewisham District
Board, for an injunction to restrain both the Boards from causing or continuing
the diversion of a stream which theretofore flowed through the
grounds of the late Mr. Stainton. He had since 1817 been possessed of a
house and grounds in Lewisham, and in 1835 he purchased a field (called
Springfield, between Willow Walk and the Avenue opposite the Black
Horse, Bushey Green), containing a copious spring of water, from whence
a stream flowed over a marshy piece of ground in a northerly direction.
Having purchased the land, Mr. Stainton collected the water into one spot
forming a pond, and diverting the flow from it into another channel to his
house and grounds, and ultimately by its original course through the Village
into the Ravensbourne. Large sums were expended, as well in the purchase
of the land as the formation of the pond and channel for diversion of
the rivulet flowing therefrom, which had been regarded by Mr. Stainton
with peculiar pleasure, in which probably his representatives participated,
and thus no compensation given by a jury could repay to them the pretium
affectionis with which they regarded it.
In 1855 the Metropolitan Commissioners of Sewers began the main
sewer, which is constructed from a point near the village church to the
Black Horse Inn, Rushey Green, in the turnpike road, and from thence in
its course to Bell Green, in the Catford Hill Road. When the sewer had
got opposite Mr. Stainton's property, and had cut through a bed of clay
which seems to have retained the water in the basin or gravel upon which
Rushey Green is situated, the spring disappeared from the spot where it
previously welled up, and thereupon the plaintiffs filed their bill for an
injunction.
It appeared to him (the Master of the Rolls) on the hearing (6th June,
1855), that it was the intention of the Commissioners of Sewers to construct
the sewer so that, if the expectations of the engineer proved correct, it
would not inflict any injury on the plaintiffs; and although, should the
sewer permanently divert the water from the plaintiffs' spring the Commissioners
claimed the right of doing so; yet he thought it better, as the
question of fact was in contest, that the motion should stand over until the
sewer was completed, inasmuch as if the result turned out as was anticipated,
no question either of fact or law would arise.
The sewer was then completed, but the result arising from its construction
was still in dispute from the circumstance that a side sewer parallel
with the main sewer had been made into it by the District Board, within
the limit of the band of clay which formerly contained the water; the
D 2