10.  The  Metropolitan  Board  of  Works  con-
structed a  sewer  in  the  high  road,  and
the   Leufiiham   district    board   made  a


branch  sewer  running  into  it.  The  com-
bined ^ect  of  the  two  was,  to  drsin  an
ornamental  pond  and  rivulet  in  the  ad-
joining lands  of  the  Plaintiff.  In  a  suit
to  obtain  an  injunction,  Held,  first,  that
neither  of  the  boards  were,  in  respect  to
the  diversion  of  the  water,  to  be  treated
as  clothed  with  the  rights  or  obligations
of  adjoining  landowners.  Secondly,  that
they  had  not  exceeded  their  statutory
rights  so  as  to  be  liable  to  be  restrained
by  ii^unction  ;  thirdly,  but  that  if  either
of  these  boards  were  producing  this  in-
jury to  the  Plaintiffs,  by  the  unskilful  or
improper  construction  of  the  sewer,  this
Court  would  interfere  to  prevent  it ;  and
fourthly,  that  such  not  being  the  case,  the
rights  of  the  Plaintiffs  were  limited  to  a
claim  for  compensation  under  the  11  &
12  Viet.  c.  112,  s.  50,  and  the  18  &  19
net.  c.  120,  s.  86.  Stainton  v.  Woolrydi;
Stainton  v.  The  Metropolitan  Board  of
Works  and  the  Lewisham  District  Board  of
Works.  vol.  28,  p.  225

11.  Two  trustees,  who  severed  in  their  de-
fences, were  allowed  one  set  of  costs  only.
One  of  them,  by  his  answer,  imputed
misconduct  to  the  other,  which  rendered
it  necessary  for  him  to  sever,  and  he
asked  for  the  whole  costs.  The  Court
being  unable,  on  the  answers,  to  deter-
mine the  question,  left  the  division  to  the
Taxing  Master.    Course  v.  Humphrey.
