View report page

196
into a main drain pipe running along the back gardens and discharging
into a public sewer in a side street by No. 1.
Assuming the whole main pipe from C to A requires to be relaid
what are the respective liabilities'! Clearly, the pipe behind Nos. 1
and 2 is a single private drain, but the pipe from A to B is a sewer—
the mere fact that the line of pipes is continuous does not alter its
character being such as to bring it within the definition of sewer, anc
although the continuous line of pipes bears a similarity to the drain or
Mr. Johnson's property, in Thompson v. Eccles Corporation, it must
be borne in mind that in the Eccles case the Court of Appeal did not
decide that Mr. Johnson's drain was not a sewer, nor did the Court
decide who would have been liable had the nuisance occurred or
Johnson's property instead of Thompson's. We may therefore argue
that no apportionment could be served upon the owner of Nos. 3, 4,
5, 6, in respect of the drain from A to B.
If, however, the flow of drainage in these six houses be reversec
into the side street by No. 6, as shown in the plan below, then the lint
of pipes behind Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 from A to B is practically identical with
what was decided to be a single private drain in the case of Haedicke