The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1881-08-28

4
views-The Water from the Basin-POinta
OF Interest In Regard 20 Water.
The application made by the Richmond
and Allegheny Railroad Company for an in-
junction against the City Of Richmond, in
the matter OF disputed wafer rights, was 10
have been beard by judge q. l.. Christian
at 10 o'clock yesterday morning. At the
hour appointed he was promptly in his
place and stated TO those waiting that be
had received message from counsel asking
thst the motion be continued until Monday.
Mayor Darlington, upon reading Mr..
| II. &. Parsons's letter, published in this
paper yesterday, entered heartily into the
compromise spirit therein indicated, and
asked a conference with Mr. Parsons. Mr..
Parsons had, however, left the city for
Charleston, West Virginia, and Dir. Charles
u. Williams was authorized TO act.
General Lindsay Walker, the division
superintendent Of the Richmond and Allie
ghany railroad, placed an engine at the dis
posal Of The conferees, and about IL O'Clock
MIR. williams and Mr.. Sheriffs, the hydro
graphic engineer OF the railroad company,
and Colonel Cutshaw, City Engineer,
and his Honor Judge Christian, started
up the canal to review the ground aGd see
what could be done TO improve the supply
to the mills and to the city. MsyOr Car
rlngton remained in the city to attend the
meeting Of the Board Of Aldermen.
The party, after visiting Bosher's dam
and points beyond returned 10 the city,
about 4 O'clock. At O'Clock the Mayor,
the City Attorney, the City Engineer, and
General Walker, Ar. Sherifis, and Mr. VIII
Iiams had a conference, at which the situa-
ton was discussed at length, and various
remedies proposed and criticised.
The conference adjourned without CON-
ing to any conclusion, except that meet
ing OF the Committee on Water should be
held at the Mayors Office tomorrow morn
ING at 9 O'Clock. Then the practical bility oil
letting in the water from BOsher's dam and
providing for an equitable division OF the
canal stream between the city and manu-
fscturers will be considered and deter
| mined.
ME-. KeiIey's Answer 10 the Allegheny
COmpauY's Application for an In'
junction.
The following is the answer OF City-At
torney Kelley 10 the application for an To-
juuctiOn flied by Mr., Charles u. Williams
on behalf OF the Richmond and Allegheny
Railroad Company, aud which motion vii
be heard by Judge q. l.. Christian Monday
morning..
Inthe Chaucery Court OF the City OF Rich
mond-Tbe Richmond and Allegheny
Railroad Company, plaintiff, Us. The City
Of Richmond ct al, defendants:
The answer Of the city Of Richmond to q
bill exhibited against IL and another in the
Chaueery Court OF the city Of Richmond by
the Richmond and Allegheny Railroad Com
pauy, plaintiff.
The said defendant, saving and reservine
all manner Of Just exception to the said bill,
for answer TO so much Of the same as 1t Is
advised it is material or requisite to answer,
says:
/ /. That il admits the incorporation, as nl'
legged, OF the plaintiff company by the Gene
raj Assembly.
Q. That this defendant denies that the said
railroad company has become
TEE OWNER IN PEE
OF "sll the property, rights, franchises. and
privileges which belonged TO the James River
and KansWha Company "-tirst, because
this defendant AYERS that the plslntin took
the property and franchises OF the SAID
James River aud Kanawba Company subject
to a contract and conveyance OF record eK-
ecuted the 3d day Of March, 1850, ana re-
corded the next day in the clerks office OF
the Court OF Cbancery, to when reference
will be hereinafter made; ana secondly,
because the Act OF Assembly (spproVeo
February q, 1879 Acts 1859, page llS),
authorizing the sale by the james RIVER snd
Ksuswhs Company Of It's property. &c, TO
this plaintiff, distinctly contemplstes the
sxtinguishment Of the only frsnehise, PRIV
iege. and duty for which the James River
and Kaniwha Company Was cDaftered-lo
wit, she furnishing Of
cAxAL TRANSPORTATION.
Z. This respondent further denies that
the shutting OF Of the water from Boshers
dam was. rs IL sought 10 be implied, favor
10 tbI. defendant granted by the plaintiff,
hut sgsrs that the same was the clear right
under the aforesaid covenant OF aiarch 3,
1880. with the James River aud kanawba
! Company, copy OF which covenant,
marked Exhibit A, is filed herewith and
prayed TO be taken rs part OF this answer.
page Al OF printed record
4. THE defendant believes the statement
"a be true that on the A,h day OF August
the Hon. w. c. Darlington, with such force
ss he deemed necessary, and after repeated
appeals for Just regard TO the right, inter-
eat, health, aud lives OF the whole popula-
ton Of Richmond, invaded and Imperilled
By the
HsARrLnss GREED AND LAwLEssNRss
OF tins plaintiff, and to prevent the water
famine from which said citizens were ana
are suffering from growing intolerable, and
otter formsl request for the particular re-
lief sought BY bis said action. did cause
to be raised a water-gaie or waste
gate in the james River canal, within the
Jurisdiction OF the city OF Richmond, Tor
the purpose Of diveriing to the use OF tue
Vanishing people Of this city the wsier to
which by natural right. and by private
contract, and by distinct act OF the state
Legislature. they, the said people, were en-.
titled, and by his said acs afforded the said
citizens some
SMALL SHARE or THs RELIsT
10 which they are by law entitled but so far
from this action being the result OF either
ignorance and folly on the part OF the said
Hou. W. q. CarriugtOn, this defendant
ayers that 1t was done 10 perfect compre-
hersion OF the right OF this defendant, and
~ tbs event shows, with wise forecast ~ to
a.. yesulf. and for fuleT and perfect snsWer