Kall

This is an action brought by the plaintiff against defendants for the purpose of obtaining an injunction restraining defendants from permitting water brought from defendants’ lands for the purpose of irrigating rice thereon to escape by percolation or otherwise upon the lands of plaintiff. Damages are also asked for the injury.

The trial court found in favor of the plaintiff upon both issues, granting the injunction and assessing damages to the amount of sixteen hundred dollars.

We do not understand that appellant Carruthers (Mo-homed did not file a brief) seriously contends that the evidence is not ample in support of the findings of the court. We have read the record and cannot doubt that the plaintiff was substantially damaged by reason of the escaping irrigation water; neither can we doubt that the escaping irrigation water came from defendants’ lands. We think the destructive agency was clearly traceable to defendants ’ act in raising the water table by percolation upon adjacent lands.

The mode of establishing this fact is somewhat difficult, though interesting, but the means and methods of demonstration were placed in the hands of an expert, and were convincing to the…