Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1890-10-26
Pennsylvania Beverages that Should
be the Purest of all, Now Get
ting Decidedly Mixed.
CONFUSING JUDICIAL DECISION.
Mining, Manufacturing and Boring for
oil and Gas May Leave Only
Mineral Water to Drink.
A CONDITION THAT is CONFRONTING.
Righy Important Suggestion in Ruling on Riparian
Rights.

Judge Ewing, not long ago, suggested, in
a ruling on the question OF riparian rights,
or rather on the rights of people whose wells
and springs are salteG by the operations OF
ueople boring for gas or oil, train Of
yhought that is exciting much Interest, moi
only among people directly in brine, but
also among the legal fraternity. 1t sug-
rests 4 possible modification of the doctrine
laid own Dv the Supreme Court in the case
of SaEderson ana wife against the Penn
syIvauia Coal Company of Lacka*anna
county.
1t will lee recollected by some that the
Cour; said it would not undertake to say
that tue ruling would apply to a whole CON-
muuitv as it did to an individual. The old
interpretation OF the law in general was that
no one would be allowed to foul water
above the land OF another through
which the water would flow, but
rs circumstances alter cases, in law
as we'll as in morals, and as Pennsylvania is
nearly all mining country, 1t would seem
thg: the application o. the law as lald down
n the above cited case, will in time render
nearly all the water in this State unfit for
calinary. drinking, and, in fact, for nearly
I'll uses, only the longer rivers escaping
complete contamination. and possibly drive
zis 20 the use Of water from artesian wells,
eyea for beer making.
y SITUATION HARD TO CONTEMPLATE
Itls i situation hard to contemplate, and
II time everybody may be forced to use wine
.os a beverage, as some people in Paris say
they are forced TO do, or resort entirely to
ci>terns and depend for supply on the
clouds.
Every farmer who has faith that there is
petroleum or gas under his land is willing
10 take the risk OF having his and his neigh
boris supply of water contaminated By salt
water or other mineral properties.
People about Glenfield are kicking
agaias. the infusion OF salt water, and the
people of the Beaver Valley are also up in
arms against a boring corporation. a man
named Jordan some years ago forced the
Imperial Coal Mining Company to buv his
farm because its coke works fouled Montour
ran, which flowed through his property, but
mad ne awaited the action of the Supreme
Court in ;he Lackawauna county case he
would have been left. A family named
RObb living on the same run, have had a
spring sailed this summer on account of the
boring of an oil well, and have since been
forced to 60 q quarter of mile up hill for
water for drinking and cooking purposes.
Mrs. Robh saws the water in the salted
spring is just sufficiently salted for the sea-
sonlng OF potatoes, but il isn't good Tor coffee
or lemonade.
James Scarborough, living in the same
neighborhood, complains that he has lost the
pasturage of two fields IRON the same cause,
but beth are powerless, under the decision
mentioned, to secure remedy.
MEADOW BROOKS CONTAMINATION.
Twenty years ago or more Mrs Eliza Nc.
Briar Sandersou bought fine and an ex.
tensiye property above the city OF Scranton,
through which ran stream named Meadow
Brook. She built an elegant residence, and
by means OF hydraulic rams supplied ii
with water for all sorts o. domestic pur-
poses and ornament. as also the houses of
her tenants. She had fine fish ponds con-
stTUG,ed, fountains TO play ETC., but when
the Pennsylvania Coal Company, some years
Later, opened a shaft On its propertv. the
water became so contaminated with mineral
acids that the steam boilers, hydraulic rams
anG ali pipes necessary not only became
corroGeu and unfit Tor use, but the water be-
came unit .or any of the uses intended, and
the fist dIci. The case came before the Su-
preuIg Court IoUr times on writs of error and
received Us final quietuS February 3, 1886.
and =. q. Sanderson and his wife, Eliza Nc
6riar Sanderson, in right of the latter, were
no; only GeSuoiled thereby of all the
valuable improvements they had made
.Ut lost a verdict given them for several
thousand dollars in the lower court. As
stated Dy Justice Clark, it appears to have
been the only case ever tried in this State,
up to that date, in which the precise ques-
tion at issue was decided.
OF GREAT INTEREST TO LAWYERS.
That this case is of profound interest to
lawyers is evidenced by the underscoring OF
the salient portions OF the opinion, and Lii
brarl4n Digby has been asked for the
volume 50 often that his hand moves to ii
automatically. The main points are as fol-
lows:
Before the Supreme Court the company's
counsel held that the true theory of negli-
gence, as developed in the law of torts, both
N England ana IN this country, is: Dam
@geS resulting TO another from the natural
and lawful use OF his land by tbe
owner thereof are, in the absence of malice.
JaEnum absque injuria; and the corollarv
al this rule l.: When the maxim sic utere
tuO u allenum non loedus is
applied to landed property the plaintid Il
,.!aSt show not only that he has sustained
damage, but that the defendant has caused
t by going beyond what is necessary. in
order to enable him to have the natural use
of lis own land. Ii defendant confines
himself to the necessary means of lawful
eoj8vment OF his land, the damage arises
uoI from his act, but CT neceSSitdte, and the
plaintiffs loss is as much the result OF UiS
aeGJor, the act OF God, as though caused by
lightning or food.
Tic compluv's attorneys claimed that:
II, IL our case, we cannot use our land for
the natural purpose of mining coal, because
5nr neIghbor cannot keep tame fish in his
poud, the same rule should apply to him.
he should not be allowed to maintain a fish
pond so near our mine that We cannot
use II. -
They cIteu numerous cases to show that
English law on the case mad not been re-
garded as law in the United States, 1t was
also held that the right OF mine owners to
drain into rivers has always been recognized
o. At least, has Always been acouiesced in
\ thls State. In support, Judge Woodward
vas quoted IN kaufman versus Griesemer
and Judge Stowe, in Hughes versus Ander.
son, 6S, Ala, 2S0: ''Tne rough outline of
natural right or natural liberty must sub
nit 10 the chisel OF the mason, that it enter
symmetrically into the social structure"
Auekesteln'S appeal was quoted to show
:hat smoke was rot nuisance in Pittsburg,
tAguew J., in 20 P. <. s., 1929
THE LOWER COURT REVERSED,
The Supreme Court reversed the lower
court. Justice Clark delivered the opinion.
but there were three dissenters-Justices
Morcur & 4 Gordon and Trnnkav Tn.t;n.