Case ID: njl_88/html/0368-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

THE AUGER & SIMON SILK DYEING COMPANY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWARK, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
    Submitted July 6, 1915
    Decided November 15, 1915.
    On appeal from the Supreme Court.
    For the respondent, William I. Lewis and Griggs & Harding.
    
    For the appellants, Harry Kalisch.
    
   Per Curiam.

The determining question involved in the case was considered and disposed of in the opinion filed at this term in the case of the same plaintiff against the East Jersey Water Company and the Jersey City Supply Company. There was, in the present case, evidence from which the jury might infer that after the plaintiff had withdrawn water from the river and used it for djreing purposes it was returned to the river in a polluted condition. Such polluted discharge is forbidden by law, and is not the reasonable use of flowing water to which a riparian owner is entitled. For the reason given in the opinion above referred to, the judgment under review will be reversed and a new trial awarded.

For affirmance—Garrison, Trenchard, Blaoic, White, JJ. 4.

For reversal—The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Swayze, Parker, Bergen, Minturn, Kalisch, Vredenburgh, HepPENHEIMER, TAYLOR, JJ. 10.