According to the authorities, the right which the plaintiff claims, to have the water from his land run by the ancient watercourse over the defendant’s land, is an easement; and the obstruction of that watercourse is a disturbance of an easement on land, of which, by St. 1840, c. 87, § 1, the court of common pleas has no jurisdiction. Cary v. Daniels, 5 Met. 236 ; Crittenton v. Alger, 11 Met. 281; and the action was rightly dismissed*