¶1The court have no doubt upon this subject. The question submitted to the arbitrators was of legal right, involving matter of law and fact. There was an actual diversion of a watercourse. If the proprietor through whose land it passed could take it out in such a manner as to return it to the proprietor below, subject to the reasonable uses of the first proprietor, he had a right to do it. But the arbitrators have found that the legal right of the plaintiff was invaded, and therefore some damages follow. Cook v. Hull, 3 Pick. 269. Bolivan Manuf. Co. v. Neponset Manuf. Co. 16 Pick. 246.
¶2Judgment on the award.