Court Opinion

ID: 9809246
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 21:04:55.551028+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:25:35.638687
License: Public Domain

FaiRcuoth, O. J.,
dissenting. I am unable to agree with the majority of the Court in this case. This action was brought against six defendants, including Mrs. Laura A. McGowan. She is the widow of G. A. McGowan, who died since suit brought. For some reason, no one was put on trial except Mrs. McGowan. There is a mass of evidence applicable to the conduct of all the defendants. I shall not trouble *446myself witb the evideu.ee, fox* the reason, after reading it, I find there is no evidence against Laura A. McGowan. The only issue submitted as to her, was, whether she had diverted water from its natural channel and disehai*ged it on-the lands of the plaintiff.
The action is not brought upon alleged breach of contract referred to in the opinion, but it is an action of tort. The trial shows that the question i*eferred to the waters of Baldwin Swamp, the allegation being that the defendant Laui'a had, by cutting ditches, etc., thrown some of those waters on the plaintiff’s land. There is no evidence that she did so. The jury so found. His Honor did not charge that there was any such evidence, and the opinion of this Court does not recite that there was any such evidence. The allegation is denied and the proof fails. If it be assumed that there was an error in the charge, I fail to see why a new tidal should be ordered as to Laura A. McGowan, who is not shown to have taken any part in the alleged tortious act. One of plaintiff’s witnesses testified: “I think that the ditch which carries the water from the basin to Baldwin Swamp was cut bv Billy McGowan, and was widened and deepened by George McGowan.” The agreement referred to allowed defendants to cut and drain “to the mouth of the five-foot canal, known as the Baldwin canal, cut in the summer of 1818,” the date of the agreement being August 1, 1882.