Waters and Water Bights—“Foreign” Waters—Bights of Biparian Owners.—Those who augment water of a stream by the addition of water brought from sources outside the watershed may at their pleasure discontinue such increment and leave without remedy riparian owners below, who cannot by adverse possession or user obtain any easement or right against those who thus add to the corpus of the stream.

Id.—Bight of Lower Against Upper Biparian Owners.—Where, in an action by lower riparian owners against upper riparian owners to restrain a diversion of waters, it appeared that for upward of half a century the waters of the stream, the rights to which were in question, had been augmented by foreign waters made up of sewage from a city and water discharged from mines, mills, and other sources, all without the watershed of the stream, and that these were the waters which the plaintiff sought to enjoin the defendant's from taking, the defendants had the right to invoke the rule that the plaintiffs must rely upon t'he strength of their own title and not upon the weakness of that of their adversaries.

Id.—Bight to Abandoned Waters.-—Since the surplus or foreign waters, in such case, would not, in the course of nature, reach the land of the riparian owner below, that owner may not complain of being deprived thereof by the producers of the excess or by t'heir assignees, or by a stranger to their title who appropriated it.

Id.—Bight to Use Foreign Waters Outside Watershed.—In such case those who first secured the abandoned foreign waters may not be deprived of the use of it, even outside of the stream, by one claiming as a lower riparian proprietor on the stream.

Id.—Judgment—Certainty,—Where in such a case the court found that the foreign water in the stream is never less than five hundred inches nor more than one thousand four hundred inches, and that the natural flow is always at least 1,191 inches, a judgment adjudging the defendants to he entitled t'o all the foreign water not exceeding one thousand four hundred inches and enjoining them from taking more than that quantity is not open to attack as being uncertain.

Id.—Judgment—Evidence not in Record—Findings Justified by Evidence.—Under the rule favoring the sustaining rather than the reversal of judgments, it will be assumed that evidence not set forth in the record justifies the findings, and that a judgment is in accordance with fairness and equity.

Id.—Jurisdiction of Subject of Action—County Where Action Commenced.—Where the plaintiff sought to quiet its title to the natural flow of water of a river at the plaintiff’s lands in Tuba County, the mere fact that' a tributary creek had a separate name and extended through another county did not make it less a part of the river, and the trial court properly found that the plaintiff’s right sought to be quieted was a part and parcel of the plaintiff’s Tuba County lands, so that the superior court' of Tuba County had juris- ' diction of the action under section 5 of article VI of the constitution.