"  with  other  riparian  owners. In  coUecting  the  overflow
"  at  the  trough  and  conveying  it  to  the  mill  he  clearly
"  did  nothing  in  derogation  of  the  rights  of  any  other
"  person,  or  which  he  was  not  entitled  to  do  in  the  lawful
"  use  and  enjoyment  of  his  own  property ;  nor  did  he
"  thereby  lose  any  right  which  he  then  before  had. WhUe
"  the  water  overflowed  the  trough  and  ran  to  waste,  he
"  had  a  right  to  complain  of  any  undue  diversion  or
"  obstruction  of  the  stream  which  diminished  the  aocus-
"  tomed  supply  to  the  trough,  and  he  acquired  no  greater
"  right  by  conveying  it  to  the  mill. No  doubt  the  con-
"  sequences  to  a  wrongdoer  became  more  serious  after
"  the  drain  was  made  than  they  were  before,  because  the
"  wrongful  act  was  more  injurious,  and  larger  damages
"  would  have  been  paid  for  it ;  but  it  is  a  fallacy  to  say
"  that  a  man's  rights  are  abridged,  if,  when  he  abuses
"  them,  he  has  to  make  larger  compensation."^
Special  statu-  In  the  case  of  Mechcay  Co. v. Earl  of  Romney,^  the  plain-
in'w^ei? ^"^  "^  ^^^  '^®^®  incorporated  by  Act  of  Parliament  for  the  purpose
of  making  the  Medway  navigable;  and  "the  said  river  and
"  streams  so  to  be  made  navigable,  and  all  lands,  &c. to  be
"  used  for  the  benefit  of  the  navigation  were  vested  in  the
"  company  for  ever."  The  defendants  constructed  works  on
the  river,  and  raised  water  from  the  river  to  supply  a  county
lunatic  asylum  and  gaol  not  on  riparian  lands. On  action
brought  for  this  diversion,  the  Court  held  that  the  action
would  lie. Mr. Justice  Willes  says,  delivering  the  judg-
ment of  the  Court:  "Looking  to  the  objects  which  were
"  contemplated  by  the  Acts  of  Parliament,  to  which  our
"  attention  has  been  directed,  we  cannot  construe  the
"  statute  13  Geo. II. c. 26,  s. 