no harm being caused by the beams.

The converse of the question of conveying water is this: suppose he wishes to channel the water through his land from one place to another, then discharge it onto unowned land or the land of a consenting neighbour, without harming the owner of the water. Yet he ought to have the right to do so, since he is entitled to occupy an unoccupied place, and likewise to clear an occupied one.

The governing principle is that a neighbour may wish either to establish a new use of his neighbour’s property or to end his neighbour’s use of a place, where ending that use benefits him without harming the other. One of our fundamental principles is that being neighbours confers upon each party rights that someone who is not a neighbour does not possess, and imposes restrictions that do not apply to such a person. Thus, it permits the use of a neighbour’s property when this causes the neighbour no harm, while prohibiting a person’s use of his own property when that use causes harm.

Section

If, according to one of the two reported positions, we hold that he may convey his water, and he needs to convey it through an existing watercourse—for example, to drain water from his roofs and elsewhere into his neighbour’s conduit, or to convey the water of a pool through a channel and then divide it with his neighbour—this is permissible.