Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1894-02-24

D. IN.
Meeting at Midland Railroad reading
rooms at 4 p. m. Service of prayer and
praise with a short address.
Aims House service AT $50 p. m.
RoJcriS Chapel, II. +. Church (colored)
Preaching at II a. IN. and s p. III. by
Rev. Chestnut.
TIE WATER COMPANY CAsE.-As
stated yesterday, Judge Norton has de-
cided the case of Roberts VS.. the Alex
andria Water Company in favor of the
defendant company. The following is
his opinion in the case
In the Corporation Court of the city OF
Alexandria, Va.
Walter Roberts vs.. Alexandria Water
Company.
The sole question in this case is the
construction of the contract between
the Alexandria Water Company and
Reuben and h. f. Roberts, dated May
2nd. 1851, and acknowledged May Eth,
1851. assuming that the complainant is
entitled to all rights under said con-
tract.
Complainant contends that the de-
PENDANT, by reason of said contract, has
no right to sell water outside Of the
city of Alexandria, and obtained an in
junction from this court restraining the
defendant from selling water outside
of the city of Alexandria. 1t is aG-
mitted that the defendant has made
and proposes to continue to make
sales outside OF said city. By said cor
tract the defendant company convey
ed to the assignors of complainant tile
right and privilege of using the water
in the mill-race belonging to the Cam
cron Mills, in Fairfax county, Va, for
all the farming purposes of the SOCIAL
ed Cameron farm excepting irrigation).
Also the full and free use and enjoy
ment of such surplus water in said
miIl-racc, as may not at any time be
required by said Alexandria Water
Company to propel its machinery for
the purpose of conducting water into
the town Of Alexandria, in accordance
with theact of the General Assembly of
Virginia, Incorporating said company,
hut this grant shall not be construed to
limit the said Alexandria Water Com
parry in the use of said water, or of rails
Ing such quantities thereof as may be
required Tor the present and future use
of said company, to any a%ttainable ele-
yation. Complainant contends, that
by virtue of this contract, he is entitled
to all surplus water not used in Alex
andria city, and that the defendant can
only sell water in Alexandria city. |
do not think the contract, taken as a
whole, sustains this contention. The
words ''to propel its machiuery for the
purpose OF conducting water into the
town of Alexandria, in accordance with
the act of the General Assembly of Nir-
ginia," are merely descriptive and en-
Jlanatory. The evident meaning of Il c
contract is to give complainant the
right to such water as the company did
not use, and the contract expressly
says But this pmt shalt not be con-
s'rucd to limit the said 1ierandrid Ua-
ter Company in the use Of said Wdter."
The contract clearly meat that the
.rautee shall have the right to the sur
plus of water % used by the company
for lis purposes, AT any time.
On the day before this contract, the
~assignors of complainant conveyed to
the defendant company all water
rights, absolutely without limit. Under
thjs conveyance the defendant COM
pany had the absolute right to use all
the water, us ii saw fit. 1t was a com
pletc purchaser for value of the entire
water, aud had Il right to use every
drop of it. When. on the fol-
lowing day, or ven on the same
day, rs both instruments are acknow-
ci5ed the same day. the contract
Nlsa those under whom complainant
,l.jms says, but this grant shall not be
l.astuled TO limit the said Alexandra
Water Company in the use OF sale
Nvtcr. When the conveyance 10 the
4e.endent company gives it The abso-
lutte right to use every drop of water,
ln1 the grant of the surplus, TO those
under whom complainant claims says
positively, ''but this grant shall not be
construed to limit the said Alexandra
Water Company il the use of sale
water" how can there be q doubt as to
;hc true meaning of the contract? But
Complainant says, the defendant com
panv. under its charter. had only
night 10 sell water in Alexandria city
Even granting that this be true, VIVA
has the complainant TO do with 1t
The State might stop it by quo war
rauto, or. perhaps, a citizen OF Alex
andria, if he did not get supplied wit
water, or, possibly, n stakeholder,
agains, the interest of the company
but not the complainant. He mus
stand or fall by the contract, whlcI
those under whom ne claims made, ant
under that contract he is not entitled
10 the relief he seeks. In addition t.
this, the defendant company has eX
ercised the right TO sell water outsid
of the city OF Alexandria, with the ful
knowledge of the complainant, ant
those under whom he claims, from lS5
to the present time, without protes
from anyone, until within the last fe,
years, when complainant has objected
Certainly, for thirty years there wa
no objection, and altogether the RICH
has been exercised for forty years.
am of the opinion that the in]unC