The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1880-11-14
LOCAL MATTERS.
Manchester's Water Suit Agatns,
Richmond.

Manchester's Water Suit Against
Richmond.
JUDGE FTTZqUGH CONSIDERS THE CASE AND
DECLINES TO GRANT THE INJUNCTION PRAYED
FOR--HIs REASONS FOR REFUSING THE IN
JUNCTION, &C.
Judge Edward ii. Fitzhugb. OF the
Chancery Court Of this city, Yesterday
gave his decision 10 the case Of the city OF
Manchester rs. The James River and Kama
wha Company, the city OF Richmond, and
others. on a motion for an Injunction, &c.
The plaintiffs asked that the Richmond and
Allegheny Railroad Company and others
may be restrained from making any further
leases Of water. power to be used along the
first level OF the canal above Richmond or
elsewhere unless taken at some point above
the property OF the city OF Manchester
and returned TO the stream without
prejudice to the city of Manchester
to enjoin Richmond city and the railroad
company from the work OF building
pump-woIks " near the three mile locks 4;
to cnjoin the railroad company and the
Philadelphia and Reading Coal and Iron
Company from emptying the water used by
the last-named company below the point at
" hich it has heretofore been returned to
threatened diversion Of the stream as will
secure the return Of the water to the stream
in snch manner as will fully protect the city
OF Manchester.
The Judge, after reviewing the case, de-
clnes to grant the Injunction prayed for,
and gives his reasons as follows:
l. That the plaintiff (city Of Manchester)
is not entitlel 20 an injunction 10 prevent
Al, nd nitr
COMPANY from making new leases OF water
power. II may use 400 feet now passing
through the canal. Ii new leases are made,
which will require the diversion ofadditiOnal
water from the stream, it will be time
enough then to consider whether Manchcs-
ter will be Injured or not. There is no
reason for suppOsing that there will be any
danger Of mischief OF a serious character
being done suddenly before The interfer-
erce Of the court can be invoked.
2 That the plaintiff (city OF Manche>;er)
is not entitled 10 an Injunction against the
city of Richmond and the Richmond and
Allegheny Railroad Company for the rea-
son above stated, showing that there
has not been or IS there likely TO be
an unreasonable use of the water,
and for the further reason that it appears
that there is no intention TO raise BOSher's 5
dam or TO widen or deepen the canal below
il. and for a still further reason, applicable
alone TO the city OF Richmond, that under
It's charter courts are forbidden TO stay pro-
ceedings OF the city in the prosecution OF
its works by injunction unless it is tran
scendng its au hOrity, and injury cannot
be compensated in damages. Under section
10 Of the Charter the City Council is author
lied 10 perform various works. and among
them, by Clause v, to establish water
works within or without the limits OF the
city, &c, and by Clause VII. to lay
out, grade, and improve streets. sc.
The clause to which | have alluded
prohibiting injunctions is found at
The close OF Clause VII. But | think it
is quite clear that the prohibition j, not
confined TO streets alone. Ii the LegiSla-
ture had so intended it would have saId so.
But instead OF this, it declares that no in
junction shall be awarded to stay the pro-
ceedngs OF the city in the prosecution OF
their ac0rkS-a phrase which cOmprehends
not only streets but all other works con-
tempated by and embraced within the
said 18th section. See james River and
Kanawha Company rs. Anderson, II Lclgh,
17S: Supervisors Us. GarTell, Il Gratlan, Ola.
The cases OF Poe, trustee Us. CITY Of
Richmond, q Grattan, $40, and Of Man
chester Cotton Mills Us. Manchester, %
Grattan. S34, cited by plaintiffs counsel,
are unlike this case, and have no appiica-
ton to it. In neither OF those clse' had
either city acquired the property each
sought to take. In this case the city has
acquired the property, and Is proceeding to
prosecute a work clearly within the scope
of its authority. A similar clause is to be
found in the Code OF 1873, section 13, chap
ter 53S, applicable 10 railroads, but do not
think il applies to the Richmond and Ale
ghany Railroad Company in this case, for
no Injunction is asked TO stay the company
in the prosecution OF its work.
3. am further Of the opinion that no IN.
junction should be granted against the said
railroad company and the Philadelphia
and Reading Coal and Iron Company. II
seems that the water used by the Coal and
Iron Company is returned into the canal
above the three-mile locks and Will form
part OF the 283 feet TO be used by the city oil
Richmond at its proposed pump-house.
The same remarks which have been made In
regard to the said 2S3 feet are applicable to
the quantity used by the Iron and Coal Com
pany.
4. As no threatened diversion OF the
stream beyond what has existed for nearly
fifty wears has been shown TO exist, no
cause has been shown for imposing the re.
straints upon the several defendants asked
for by the plaintiff.