Mr. Eowlatt: Why; upon our appeal ? Mr. Mouat: Yes ; upon your own ap peal. Had the defendants not appealed on tha question of costs I have evidence to show that the plaintiffs would have ap pealed—indeed, it might have been better if they had cross appealed. It would be simple folly for the plaintiffs to seek pro tection at all- if adequate damages are withheld.
In answer to his Honor Mr. Mouat said that the plaintiffs did not seek a perma nent injunction.
His Honor: Continnal damages would amount to the same thing. Mr. Mouat: Yes ; your Honor. Mr. Mouat then read the previous judg ment. He remarked that the defendants having increased the supply of water sent down, there was more than fine mud sent down—it amounted to stones and gravel. The plaintiffs did not object to the mere discoloration of the water. He would then hand in the miners' rights and title. FT e thought it would be not necessary to hand in the title as in a case of priority of water right. Mr. Eowlatt would not admit the title.
