E E well defined, for years running in the same channel, a few feet only, from one farm to another. Held, that the appellant could not be enjoined from interfering altogether with the flow of the water; that he was entitled to the reasonable use of it for farm purposes, and that if he enlarged the spring and his stock consumed all the water, appellee could not complain. 1 In a recent case in New York, the waters from a spring on defendant's land, one hundred and twenty feet from the plaintiff's line, had been for years conducted to a trough; the waste disappeared in the ground, but one hundred feet from the trough, and near the plaintiff's line, appeared on the surface, sometimes in motion toward a sluice under the division fence, where it again disappeared, and, twenty feet beyond, on the plaintiff's land, arose, forming a spring or reservoir. The defendant diverted the water from his spring for domestic purposes, thereby intercepting the plaintiff's supply. Held, that the defendant was not liable in damages for the diversion. The court said: "No stream or water-course ran from the spring. The source from which it came, and the flow of its waste or surplus, were alike under-ground, concealed, and matters of speculation and uncertainty. Such a spring belongs to the owner of the land. It is as much his as the earth or minerals beneath the surface, and none of the rules relating to water-courses and their diversion apply. The only exception established by the authorities is that of under-ground streams which are known and notorious, and flow in a natural channel between defined banks. A few such exceptions are admitted to exist, and others may occur. But, outside of these, sub-surface currents or percolations are not governed by the rules and regulations respecting the use and diversion of water-courses, and they may be interrupted or diverted by the owner of the land for any purpose of his own." 2 See AQUA, Currit; WATER; WELL, 1. Describes a claim too old to be entertained in a court of equity or of admiralty, on account of laches in the complainant; antiquated. Those courts have not always considered themselves bound by the Statute of Limitations, though the tendency is to give the statute uniform application in all courts. Courts of equity, acting on their own inherent doctrine of discouraging, for the peace of society, antiquated demands, refuse to interfere in attempts to establish a stale trust, except where the trust is clearly established and the facts have been fraudulently and successfully concealed by the trustee from the beneficiary. In a case for relief, the beneficiary should set forth in his bill, specifically, what were the impediments to an earlier prosecution of his claim; how he came to be so long ignorant of his rights, the means used to keep him in ignorance, and how and when he first came to a knowledge of the matters alleged in his bill.. 1 Louisville v. Hyatt, 2 B. Mon. 182 (1841). 2 O'Donnell v. McIntyre, 16 Abb. N. Cas. 86 (1885): McAdam, Landl. & T. § 283; 5 Biss. 529; 35 Ga. 141. • State v. Patza, 3 La. An. 514 (1848); State v. Lowry, 33 id. 1224 (1881); Ward v. State, 56 Ga. 410 (1876). • Fisher v. Hildreth, 117 Mass. 562 (1875), Colt, J. • Willis v. Hoover, 9 Oreg. 421 (1881), cases; Corson v. Neatheny, 9 Col. 214 (1886), cases; Smith, Contr. 265; 48 Me. 107; 4 Metc., Mass., 10; 8 Johns. 147; 16 S. & R. 148; 32 L. J., Q. B. 297; 5 Ap. Cas. 342. • Badger v. Badger, 2 Wall. 92, 95 (1864), cases, Grier, J.