So,  in  The  Staffordshire  Canal  v.  Birmingham  Canal,^
where  a  prescriptive  claim,  by  user  of  forty  years,  was  set
up  to  a  use  of  water  which  a  canal  company  was  not  em-
powered to  make  by  their  Act,  Lord  Chelmsford,  L.  C,
says,  "  To  impose  such  a  servitude  upon  the  water  in  their

under  3  &  4  Will.  IV.  o.  71  ;  see  667.
Ivirmy    v.   Stoclcer,  L.   E.,    1    Ch.  '  Gale,  p.  189.
396.  «  7  H.  L.  C.  349.
1  Daniel  v.  North,  11  East,  372  ;  =  l.  K.,  1  H.  L.  254  ;  Rochdale

see  Phear,  Eights  of  Water,  pp.  Canal  t.  RadcUffe,  18   Q.   B.  287  ;

80,    85  ;    1  Wms.  Saund.   346  ;    2  National  Manure  Co.  v.  Donald,  4

Wils.  258.                                -  H.   &  N.   8  ;     see  also  Elhi-ell  v.
-  Gray  v.  Bond,  2  Brod.  &  Bing.  Birmingham  Canal,  3  H.  L.  812.
Digitized  by  Microsoft®


OF    ACQUIRED    RIGHTS    OF    WATER.
"  canal  as  that  contended  for  by  the  appellants,  would
"  have  been  ultra  vires  of  the  respondents,  and  consequently
"  length  of  user  could  never  confer  an  indefeasible  claim
"  upon  appellants  under  the  Prescription  Act,  as  no  grant
"  of  the  use  of  the  water  could  have  been  lawfully  made
"  by  the  respondents."

So,  in  The  Rochdale  Canal  v.  Radcliffe^  the  owners  of
land  within  twenty  yards  of  a  canal  were  empowered  by
statute  34  Geo.  III.  c.  78,  to  take  water  from  the  canal
for  the  sole  purpose  of  condensing  steam  for  their  engines,
such  water  to  be  returned  to  the  canal  (allowing  for  in-
evitable waste)  so  that  no  obstruction  should  accrue  to  the
navigation,  the  surplus  water  to  go  to  the  Bridgwater  Canal.
