According  to  the  plaintiff’s  own  showing,  this  was  no  case  of  mere


20


alluvion,  or  of  a  river  forsaking  its  bed  from  ordinary  and  natural
causes.  He  gave  evidence  to  show,  and  indeed  proved,  by  many  wit¬
nesses,  that  the  old  channel  ran  next  to  the  island,  and  began  to  fill
up  after  the  defendant  had  built  his  dam  from  the  island  to  Denny’s
land  on  the  main  shore;  that  the  process  of  filling  was  accelerated  by
the  abutment  built  by  the  defendant  above  the  dam,  and  was  finally
consummated  by  the  bridges  built  across  from  the  mainland  to  the
island.
^From  what  has  been  said  of  the  Allegheny  as  a  river  naturally  navi¬
gable,  recognized  by  statute  law  and  judicial  decisions,  it  is  clear  that
the  ownership  of  its  bed  between  islands  and  the  shore,  as  well  as  its
main  channel,  belongs  to  the  State.  A  wrongful  diversion  of  its
waters  from  its  bed  does  not  extinguish  the  title  of  the  State,  or  add
to  that  of  individuals.  This  is  evident  upon  principle,  and  finds  an
analogy  in  the  decision  in  Allegheny  City  v.  Reed,  12  Harris,  39,
holding  that  after  Smoky  or  Killbuck  Island  had  been  swept  away  by
the  floods,  leaving  only  a  bare  sand  and  gravel  bottom,  it  was  the
property  of  the  State,  and  not  liable  to  appropriation  as  an  island.
Having  shown  no  title  whatever  to  the  land  described  in  the  writ
of  ejectment,  the  plaintiff’s  case  is  at  an  end.  And  for  this  reason
the  bills  of  exception  to  the  rejection  of  certain  evidence  relating  to
acts  of  the  defendant,  his  conviction  and  sentence,  the  former  action
of  trespass,  etc.,  become  immaterial.  The  plaintiff  must  recover  on
the  strength  of  his  own  title  alone.
The  judgment  is  therefore  affirmed.
