The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1897-02-24
FOR AMUSEMENT
Case Against East Green-
WiCh Water Co. Held.
Charge is Pumping More Than
Agreed Quantity.
Injunction Asked for Restraining
Such Course In Future.

The case of Edward f. Mason and an
other against the East Greenwich Water
Supply Co. ~ss before the Appellate court
todsy. The complainants were represented
by Andrew J. Jennings of Fall River and
Col. q. j. Arms. These gentlemen made
a sort OF peace Offering to the respondents
by rendering for approval a decree provid-
ing for the payment of 81 damages and a
counsel fee OF $500, and the court was also
asked TO psrpetually enjoin the defend
ants from pumping more tnsn boo, 900 gal
Ions OF water daily from the stream own
cd by the complsinsnts.
Albert X. Greene WAS counsel for the
defendants and he asked that q decree
might be entered disnisslng the bill.
Col. Arms stated the company had
agreed to keep a true record Of the water
pumped by it and slso sgreed not to
pumps over 800. 900 gallons daily. He
said that on agreed issues of fact sub
mitted to q jury the latter found there
was not sufficient evidence to decide
whether the company had pumped more
than 50o, COO gallons daily during lS91. and
q false record and also that the superin-
tendent of the company old not order the
engineer In its employ to make q false
record.
Mr.. Greene claimed that the complain
ants had parted with all their rights In
the stream from which the water was
pumped and he pronounced the request
fnr s.t fa. n
to the statutes and the chsncery practice
Of this state. He urged tnst the court
should not grant the injunction
as the verdict of the jury did
not disclose that il believed the
coupsny was guilty of any fraud in
pumping the water which. was the main
ground upon which relief wassought and
said II the allegations In the complain
ants bill were true they were entitled to
substantial damages. He asked the court
to either dismiss the bill or give him
leave to amend his answer 20 as he could
state upon the record who were the
owners OF the property that the complain
ants sought an Injunction for. Mr.. Green
again referred to the strange action as he
termed it Of counsel, " ho In their abseace
of proof or fraud asked nominal damages
and for the defendapts to psy counsel
fees that were against law and practice
and which counsel had never earned.
Mr.. Jennings said that the record wss
before the court and upon il his clients
were clearly entitled to an injunction.
As To counsel fees he said that it was In
the power OF court of equity to allow
such fees. Speaking on the main purpose
of the bill he said that the mai1 charge
was not fraud but that the respondent
had not kept a true record of the amount
of water pumped as by its contract it was
bound to do and jury having so found
II was the duty OF the court to order them
to keep such account.
The right of com pla inapts to the water
OF the stream was he claimed unchsllenged
and the improper interfering with COM
plainunt's rights by pumping too much
water was o continuing nuisance and
case that called for the issuance of an in
Junction.. AT the trial OF rne issues before
the jury an engineer that formerv was
employed by the defendant company tes-
titled that the records of water pumped
were fails fled. This testimony was dis
cussed today and after the C, unset had
concluded their arguments the court held
the case tor advisement. Judges SiiDess,
Iiilinghast and Douglsss heard the oase.