New Britain herald. [microfilm reel] (New Britain, Conn.) 1890-1976, 1927-06-07

their top. These bikes were built
to prevent the clay pit from filling
with the water of periodic freshets
and floods of Willow Brook. In the
| fall of 1928 the plaintiff opened a
new clay pit situated directly to the
! north of the old clay pit. bikes We're
erected to protect the new clay pit
from the food waters of Willow
Brook. The south dixie of the new
pit was not quite parallel with the
( north dixie of the old clay pit and
the brook flowed between the bikes.
This restricted the overflow OF the
brook in times of freshet over a con-
siderable area it had been accus-
toned to overflow. and the dixie
should have been built with adc-
d,late provision for the escape of
flood waters, In the late afternoon
Of April 6, 1924, the plaintiffs dikes
were inspected and found in good
condition The waters of Willow
Brook had risen to within about one
, or one and one half feet Of the top
! of the dixie and had ponded on all
/ Of plaintiffs land and land adjacent
to plaintiffs to the north Of the new
clay pit for a distance Of several
hundred feet. Before seven o'clock
on the morning of April I, the water
/ had broken through or over the
north dixie of the old clay pit and
filled the old clay pit.
/ There was no controversy over
! the fact that the city OF New Britain
! had at and prior 10 the time OF this
action discharged crude sewage in
substantial volume at all times, and
| in times of heavy rain the crude
sewage from 5000 people. directly
into Willow Brook, and also dis
charged the street drippings and
filth from upwards of fifteen storm
water sewers. All Of these dis
4 charges were above plaintiffs prop
/ ertv and continued to the date of
/ trial There is no real dispute but
/ that these discharges OF pollution
| into this brook were appreCiable in
! quantity. The plaintiff was entitled
as a riparian owner to have this
| brook flow through its land as it had
/ been accustomed to flow as a right
inseparably annexed to its soil.
| Nolan Y. New Britain, - Conn. 66S,
| GS1. The defendant city had no right
to appreciahly or materially pollute
the brook and thus cause a nuisance
! and impair plaintiffs rights IN it.
! Stamford Extract Mfg. Co. Y. STAN
ford Rolling Mills Co. 10l Conn.
! SO. 322. II a municipal corporation.
/ in the absence OF legal right so to
| do. causes sewage to pollute water
/ course, to the use Of which lower
/ owner through whose premises the
! watercourse flows is entitled. it is
! guilty of a nuisance for which DAM
| ages may be recovered. Nolan Y.
! New Britain. supra, at page 61S.
| The evidence was so conclusive that
the defendant city had appreciably
and materially polluted this brook
! that the jury could not have rea-
sonably found otherwise and must
| have awarded the plaintiff at least
nominal damages.
THE case OF the plaintiff upon
! his issue justifies the same conclu-
| sion we reached in Feudl V. New
| Britain, SO Conn. 25, when We said,
at page 1928: Independently of any
other consideration, we think there
must be a new trial because the jury
! would have been justified in finding
! that the city was maintaining a
nuisance by discharging offensive
sewage on the plaintiffs land" In
no jurisdiction has the subject Of the
| pollution of a stream to the injury
! of a riparian owner received full
er or more frequent. consideration
! than in our own state. The law upon
, this subject is too firmly settled in
+ the cases We cite 10 require further
! consideration. Morgan V. Danbury,