The national Republican., 1867-07-13
AatiOual Arpablitau.
THE COURTS.

EQUITY CoURT-Chtg justice CdrtteT.-
The Court opened at tep O'Clock Thursday, and
considered the following cases:
7S9. George Hill, jr., vs.. the Chesapeake and
Ohio Canal Company. An application to dis
solve an injunction granted by Judge Fisher rs-
straining the Canal Company from stopping the
supply Of water obtained from the canal BY the
mill Of Mr.. Hill, at the corner Of Potomac and
Water streets, Georgetown. -. H8Tt ..,
II appeared that on the I'd OF January, 1854,
Mr. Hill leased from the Canal Company for
twenty years, from the LIST Of July, 1857, at the
rate Of $500 Der annum for the first ten years,
and 5000 for the last ten years, the right to use
from the canal q much water as would pass
through IN orifce Of two hundred square inches
the lower edge Of said orihce 10 DO not loss than
two feet from the bottom Of the canal. This
ori6ce was made forty two inches wide and. to
secure the water flowing through, hume Of the
same width was constructed carrying the water
from the canal bank for q considerable distance
to the mill Of Mr.. Hill, The quantity thus de-
livered was insufficient to work the mill, and Q
greater orifce was used for the purpose. On the
10th Of May and lst OF June 1856, the canal
board adopted . resolution providing that The en-
gineer should ascertain the additional quantity
Of water needed by Mr.. Hin, and that such ad-
ditional quantity should thereupon DO leased TO
him upon the usual conditions, and the payment
Of five dollars per inch bonus. Mr.. Manning.
tho engineer, thereupon made the examination
required, and ascertained TINT an orihee Of seven
hundred square inches (including the two hun.
dred already leased) would be required. Demand
for the bonus and additional rent upon tho addi-
tional area Of aperture was made on Mr.. Hill,
who, denying the justice Of the claim, refused to
pay. Thereupon the company were about to
cut of the supply Of water for Mr.. Hills mill
as by the lease they had reserved the right to
do when they were restrained by the injunction
Of Judge Fisher, who had, upon granting the
same, compelled Mr.. Hill to pay into court the
rent and bonus which the Canal Company claimed
to be due them.
Mr.. Davidge appeared for Mr.. Hin and Mr..
Cox for the Canal Company.
1t was contended for Mr.. Hill that as the
original lease authorized him to draw water at o
depth Of two feet from the canal bottom and an
average Of four feet from the water.surface, and
as the additional extent Of aperture given was
above the FIRST aperture, rising to within Ave
inches Of the surface, and had very much less
pressure upon 1t and delivered far less quantity
Of water than the original aperture, therefore
an addition in aperture corresponding with
the increased elevation would be needed 10 place
second lease upon tho same terms as the first.
Mr.. Cox, for the canal company, held that
while the lease allowed Mr. Hin to make the
width Of the delivery orifce as great rs he chose
yet, rs he had, of his own accord, made his
hume forty-two inches wide, the only possible
mode by which the canal company could give
additional aperture was by extending the open.
pany had not contracted to furnish q given
amount Of water or to deliver II at any defined
depth. Tho heighth from the bottom specific
was q restriction on the power Of the lessee, not
stipulation on the part Of the canal company.
As the heighth Of the orifee was the consequence
Of the base furnished by Mr.. Hil he was on.
titled to no deduction OF rent because the quan.
tity furnished was thereby lossened.
The court said that this was contract TO sup
ply water-power. The quantity Of water was
the body Of the contract. As to the first two
hundred inches, II It was an original question,
the court would hold that Mr.. Hin was entitled
to draw water as far below the surface as he
could consistently with the provisions which
kept him two feet from the bottom, but he had
settled this by his own act, and relieved the
court from need Of further consideration Of this
part Of the subject. All that re smained was the
construction of the resolutions which, by their
passage by the Board and the acceptance Of Mr..
Hill, became the contract as to an additional
lease Of water. This contract, like all other
contracts, should bo construed equitably, and
in this view the quantity Of water secured is the
object Of the contract. II Is to be supposed that
Hill expected to get all the water he could above
the limit of two feet from the bottom, and con-
tracted with that view. The quantity of water
was the corpus Of the contract-not the privilege
Of cutting hole Of certain dime nsions In the
canal Under all the circumstances, the court
held that it would bo proper to refer the cause to
klned person 10 report proper methods OF ad-
justing the rental value Of the additional water
delivered to Mr.. Hill under the resolutions Of
the 10th Of May, 1866. Mr.. Hutton, engineer
In charge Of the water works, was suggested as
proper commissioner for this purpose and Il was
agreed that the case be adjourned until this
morning to enable the counsel to frame the order
Of reference.
6ot. Merriman VS.. Bargy. Injunction re-
fused.
992 Joyce vs.. BASE. Order for defendant to
show cause why injunction should not Issue to
prevent the sale advertised under q deed Of
trust, the allegation being that the deed was
fraudulent. The answer OF the defendant swore
away the equity of the plaintiffs bill, and the
order for IN injunction was dismissed.
700 Prayser vs. CrOme. Order ratifying au
ditor's report
592. Clarke vs.. Payne. Decree appointing W.
+. Mattingly trustee to sell.
1853. Marbury (administrator) vs. Douglas OF
al. Order of publication.
9S4 Angus vs. Angus. Decree appointing ].
W. Angus trustee to sell.
Sl7. Deely vs.. Shanahan. Decree appointing
Charles Walter receiver Of rents, &c.
The court then adjourned until Friday morn.
ing at 10 o'clock.
GRTNINAT Inrpr- TuNp Hp,u |u,af