The Republican journal., 1898-08-18
Belfast Water Co. Case Settled.

Judgment Given for the City.
The Law Court has rendered its decision in
the case of the Belfast Water Co. vs.. the
City of Belfast. The action was entered at the
January term of court in this city and was
on bill for hydrant rental for two hydrants
| on Waldo avenue and Vine street from Oct.
l, 1898 to Oct, l, 1897 years at $50 per year,
5000; and for changing water gate to al
low for widening a sidewalk, SD 50; total
OF >212.30 The city defended the first item
on a clause in the contract with the Water
Company which provides that all additional
hydrants after the original 40 shall be
placed on pipe not smaller than 8 inches in
diameter; these being on 4-inch pipe and on
the second item on the ground that it is the
duty of the Water Company to make such
changes at its own expense. The judg-
ment is for the defendant. The rescript by
Judge Savage is as follows;
l. The plaintiff made a contract with the
defendant in which it agreed, among
other things, that the company should furn-
lsh at such points as the city should there
after designate, which points should be sub
stantidlly those indicated upon the plan an
neXed to the contract, 10 hydrants of ap-
proved pattern, each provided with three
nozzles wherever required by the city.
Ii WAS further agreed that If at any time
the city desired additional hydrants above
said number of 10 the company should furn-
lsh the same at an annual rental of S35 for
each hydrant set upon the pipe Indicated
upon the plan, and $40 for each hydrant
which should come on new pipe; also that if
the city should desire five hydrants addi-
tional to the 10 before stipulated, located
as to require no more pipe than should be
necessary
drants, the company should place said five
hydrants without additional charge, provid-
ed they could be set during the construction
of the works, and include the rent thereof III
the sum therel matter designated for hy-
drant service. 1t was also agreed that all
hydrants should he $50 piped as to receive
abundant and sufficient circulation of
water among and in all OF the same
The company further agreed "to lay
main pipe not less than ten inches and not
more than l. in diameter in the clear, from
the reservoir or standpipe, through certain
specified streets, ito connect up all said 45
hydrants, located aforesaid, and all such
additional hydrants, in such manner that
none of said hydrants shall come ON pipe
smaller than six inches in diameter in the
clear" The city agreed ito pay semi-an-
nually for the hydrants aforesaid, not
eeedlng 30 in number rent of 5000.
After the original waterworks had been
Completed the city directed the company to
d d
ly named i'll the contract, las provided in
the contract with said company
The company laid four inch main, set
two hydrantS, and connected the hydrants
and main with six inch pipe. In an action
TO recover the hydrant rental under the
contract the court holds that all hydrants in
addition to the original 10, whether placed
during the construction of the works or
later, are within the provision of the con-
tract requiring the location of ''all such ad-
dltlOnal hydrants in such manner that none
of said hydrants shall come on pipe smaller
than six inches in diameter" and that even
if the facts of the case otherwise admitted of
the application of the doctrine of "substan-
tial compliance, it cannot be said that fur
nishing pipe less than half the capacity call
ed for by the contract is a substantial COM
pliance with its provisions, the plaintiff can
not recover the rental.
.. BY virtue of contract with the city,
the company obtained authority Ito dig up
any and all highways, ways and streets IN
said city for the purpose of laying pipes dur
ing the time of constructing said works.
and acting under this authority, it laid its
pipes, and located certain water gates, with
in the street limits, near the edge of the
sidewalk as it then existed. Subsequently,
the city proposed to widen the sidewalk and
put down granite curbing, and directed
the company to move the gate boxes and
place them outside Of the curbing, which
was accordingly done. 1t is held by the
court that when the company placed It's
water gates in the street under this con
tract, it did so subject to the right of the city
to make such changes in the surface of the
street and the alignment of the sidewalk as
might be necessary to render the street safe
and convenient for public travel, and when
ever 1t became necessary to change the loca-
ton of the water boxes, by reason of neces-
sary repairs or Improvements in the street,
it was the duty of the company to make the
change at its own expense. 1t cannot re-
cover the expense of the city.
r. F. Dunton, Esq, is attorney for the
plaintiff; City Solicitor Geo. E. Johnson,
Esq, for the defendants.