&N.  421.
^  Sostocli  V.  North  Staffordshire
Hail.  Co.,  4  E.  &  B.  798;  Snape
and  Wife  v.  Dobbs,  1  Bing.  202;
S.  C,  8  Moore,  23.
^  "Woolrycli,  Law  of  Waters,  p.
65.
'  Grand  Union  Canal  v.  Ashby,  6


H.  &  N.  394.
'  Cromford  Canal  v.  Cutts,  5  Rail.
Cas.  442;  Barnsleij  Canal  y.  Ticilii/l,
3  Rail.  Cas.  451  ;  Dudle?/  Canal  v.
Grazibrook,  1  B.  &  Ad.  59 ;  Birming-
ham Canal  v.  Dudleij,  7  K.  &  if.
969;  TFiffhtl)/  Canal  v.  Badlet/,  7
East,  366 ;  Sirmingham  Canal  v.
Haifl-esford, 7 East, 3 71, note;  Stour-


Digitized  by  Microsoft®


CANALS.  281

In  the  case  of  Budleij  Canal  v.  Grazehrook,^  an  Act
proYided  that  no  owner  of  any  mines  should  work  within
twelve  yards  of  the  canal  without  leave  of  the  company.
If  the  owner  wished  to  work  the  mines,  he  was  to  give  the
canal  proprietors  notice,  and  they  might  inspect.  If  they
did  not  inspect  he  might  work  them,  and  if  they  refused
to  let  him  work  them'  they  were  to  buy.  By  another
clause  nothing  was  to  defeat  the  right  of  owners  of  mines
to  work  them,  provided  that  in  working  the  same  no
injixry  was  done  to  the  navigation.  It  was  held  that  this
proviso  was  to  be  construed  with  some  qualification —
namely,  either  that  the  party  working  the  mines  was  to  do
no  unnecessary  damage  to  the  navigation,  or  no  extra-
ordinary damage  by  working  out  of  the  usual  mode.
