Wednesday in ! the circuit court the case of Charles Finkbeiüer vs. Christian Ernst occupied the boards. The plaintiff claims damages by reason of a dam constrocted in a water course, by which the water that would otherwise flow across the defendants iarm is tnrned back upoa the plaiutifE, practically destroying tor tilliug purposes a field of some eight or ten acres. The farms of the parties to the snit are located in Bridgewater township and on the south east qnarter of section 24. Ernst owns the north 80 acres and betweeu him and Fiukbeiner one Hotrum owns 22 acres aud beiner the remainder pf the 80 acre?. Aceording to the statement of plaintitï the natural course of the water is northeast across Ernst's jnst touching the nortbeast corner of Hotrum aud rnnning for a few rods ou Finkbeiner, . len passing on to Eriiest again. Now ust over tne line where the water ourse passes back onto Ernst a dam las been constrncted which throws all ae water back onto Finkbeiner, oausng a field of his to be furrowed and ullied out and rendering niuch of it nfit for tillage. The claim of the de'endant is that a number of years ago. efore a certain ditoh was dug, the water flowed across Finkbeiner as ow, so tbat the dam only sends the vater where it formerly flowed befoie :i8 land was ditched. He claims also tiat much of the water which flows long the channel is the drainage of tiotrum's and Finkbeiner's lands. A swarm of witnesses were present o testify and the tustimony up to the ime of going to press seenied to es-, ablish the fact that there were two vaterways before the land was drained, one passing over the Ernst farm where a dam was built to stop it and the other over the farm of Finkbeiner where the whole of the water now flows.