The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1901-07-27
SENT
BACK TO
MASTER
Important Ruling in The Bris-
t0I Water Works Case
Made by Court.

The case OF Town Of Bristol VS.. Bristol
and Warren Water works must according
to an opinion handed down by the appel
late division OF the supreme court today
go back TO the master who made a re-
port after hearing testimony
Both the complainant and defendant
filed and argued exceptions 10 the mas
ters report
The case Is sent back 90 the master
and some definite instructions are given
him. Complainant brought bill in equity
10 compel the defendant under a contract
20 sell the water works owned by defend
ant 20 it. the town. and for the court to
fix the price TO be paid for the plant.
After hearing on demurrer the court de-
cided the complainant stated good
cause for equitable relief and that the
court would fix the price. AS there
was much testimony 10 be introduced the
case was sent TO a master.
The question deemed important on the
sending OF the case 10 the master were
whether the whole or what part OF the
defendants system could be conveyed 10
the town as reasonable necessary and
useful for supplying water TO the town
and its Inhabitants and what would be a
fair and reasonable price for the same.
BY decrees entered on April q. 1896 and
May 23, 1896. the case formally went TO
the master who filed his report April z,
1900, and a supplemental report filed
June %. 1901, dividing into several items
the gross sum which the master had re-
ported
The master found that a reasonable
and fair price TO be paid by the complain
ant for that part OF the water works that
Is incumbent upon ii 10 purchase in ac-
cordance with the terms OF its contract
with Norman is $219,651 This makes an
allowance 10 the town OF SIS. 900 damages
for a breach OF contract by Norman and
his SUCCESSORS
IL Is the opinion or the court that this
item OF $4,000 damages should be elm
mated and also an allowance TO the de-
fendant OF $4,000 enhanced value due 10
the fact that the plant is a running one
and of $4,000 TO the same party for good
VIII OF $50, 0O0. The court SAYS that the
subject OF this sale consists OF first Ger
tain material things. the value OF which
is 20 be determined by the cost OF repro
duction less depreciation, and Cd. the
right 20 use them In a certain business
without competition for a certain time.
the value OF which right il to be deter
mined by the probable profit OF such use.
The fact that the plant is running
plant and the probable retention of Gus
toners, which is what is meant by good
Will are elements which are included I'm
the valuation OF the franchise. "A mo-
nopoly has no good win. for It's custom
ers are retained by compulslon--not by
their voluntary choice. The laying OF the
pipes In their actual position adapted TO
the use TO be made OF them as well as the
labor Of laying and material are all com
pretended In the actual costs. So the as
sessment of damages for nom -fulflllment
of the defendants contract is a matter
entirely outside the scope of the masters
duty or the province OF the court I'm this
case. To recover such a claim would re-
quire different proceeding from the
present suit"
The appellate court says that while the
water works must be considered com
plete as a plant taking the water from
It's reservoirs and distributing II through
out the town, the reservoirs themselves
furnish water also for the town of War
ren, and hence cannot be said in their
entirety 20 be included in the water works
Tor the supply Of Bristol with water,
which Norman was 20 construct and
which the town OF Bristol was TO have the
option Of purchasing The provision con-
tanned in the agreement between Norman
and the town OF Warren that I'm case
that town should purchase he would pro-
vide II with a complete water works in
dependent OF any other water works or
eSAhlsNAifb itkhtS - not contained in |
the agreement with the town of Bristol.
II seems 60 US, says the court. that
the ownership OF one OF these reservoirs
with the right to detain the water so far
as may be needed or the right TO take |
from one of the reservoirs either n Ger.
tain quantity OF water or a certain frac-
tional part OF the natural supply without
the acquisition OF ownershlps OF the res
ervoir itself or some divided part either
IN ownership or use OF reservoir might
be set out as part of the property To be
acquired by the town and the defendant
be lett with ample facilities 10 carry out
IFS contract with the town Of Warren
The case must therefore go back 10 a
master TO ascertain the reservoirs or wa
ter rights and 20 estimate the value of
the whole plant including these items.
and the pipes, engines and appurtenances
between the reservoirs and the stand |
pipe. Another important question raised |
by the exceptions 60 the masters report
Is whether or not I'm estimating the price |
to be paid by the town for the property |
to- be conveyed, the exclusive right 20 |
maintain water pipes I'm the streets and |
highways for the remainder OF the term |
OF hfty years ought 10 be included"
A number Of exceptions on both sides /
are overruled by the court including de- /
iendants sixth in 50 far as it holds that
II incumbent on the complainant 10 pur- |
chase the whole OF both reservoirs ana |
sustained SO far as II holds that the OH /
hgation 10 purchase IL not confined TO |
certain items