Phillips, J.

1. This appeal relates to a question of easement. The plaintiffs father and the 1st defendant effected a partition about 25 years ago and now the plaintiff claims to have a right to drain off the water from his house and sits through a hole in the wall, marked A.R.W. on the plan and across the defendants yard to the street in the north.

2. It is conceded that this is not an easement of necessity but the learned Advocate-General contends that it is an easement within the meaning of Section 13(f) of the Easements Act namely, that it is an apparent and continuous easement and that it was enjoyed before the partition. It is, however, admitted that since the partition took place this wall A.E.W. has been built by the parties jointly. It is further clear that prior to the partition there was no particular easement right to take water through that one point B. It is possible and indeed probable from the lie of the land that the water from the plaintiffs site did drain off towards the north across the defendants site. That easement is of a different nature to collecting all that water into one spot and directing it on to the defendants land in a concentrated form as is s