FORETELLING QUALITY OF WATER FROM WELL TO BE DRILLED.

FORETELLING QUALITY OF WATER FROM WELL TO BE DRILLED.

A number of questions relative to foretelling that good, wholesome water will be secured from a well to be drilled came up in a suit in Ohio. Among the points that came up were the difficulty o fdefinitely foretelling about rock foundations and underground streams. W. M. Dow, of Salem, Ohio, has sued R. B. Thompson to recover for work of drilling on a well on the Thompson farm in that city in 1914, is an outgrowth of a refusal of the defendant to pay for what he considered needless experimenting on the part of the drilling. In his cross petition, Thompson sued to recover what he paid Dow for the original drilling. Dow in his petition asked remuneration for drilling the well, and set up the claim that it was impossible to tell definitely about rock formation, underground streams of water, etc., and that he was in no way responsible for the securing of objectionable, iron tainted water in the well at three successive drillings. The defendant set up the claim that the plaintiffs son and agent had secured the job on the representation that he and his father had done much drilling in that neighborhood and after a thorough discussion regarding the prevalence of red or iron tainted water in the vicinity of Salem. He alleged that Dow guaranteed to secure good, wholesome water, and cited the fact that they had drilled for Thompson’s neighbors and for the city. Other drillers, he contended in that vicinity, had failed to secure good water because they lacked the knowledge he and his father possessed. Among the points brought up were the question whether a driller needs to be familiar with the geology of the district in which he works, and the question of whether water will eventually seek its level, no matter what its course.

A number of questions relative to foretelling that good, wholesome water will be secured from a well to be drilled came up in a suit in Ohio. Among the points that came up were the difficulty o fdefinitely foretelling about rock foundations and underground streams. W. M. Dow, of Salem, Ohio, has sued R. B. Thompson to recover for work of drilling on a well on the Thompson farm in that city in 1914, is an outgrowth of a refusal of the defendant to pay for what he considered needless experimenting on the part of the drilling. In his cross petition, Thompson sued to recover what he paid Dow for the original drilling. Dow in his petition asked remuneration for drilling the well, and set up the claim that it was impossible to tell definitely about rock formation, underground streams of water, etc., and that he was in no way responsible for the securing of objectionable, iron tainted water in the well at three successive drillings. The defendant set up the claim that the plaintiffs son and agent had secured the job on the representation that he and his father had done much drilling in that neighborhood and after a thorough discussion regarding the prevalence of red or iron tainted water in the vicinity of Salem. He alleged that Dow guaranteed to secure good, wholesome water, and cited the fact that they had drilled for Thompson’s neighbors and for the city. Other drillers, he contended in that vicinity, had failed to secure good water because they lacked the knowledge he and his father possessed. Among the points brought up were the question whether a driller needs to be familiar with the geology of the district in which he works, and the question of whether water will eventually seek its level, no matter what its course.