Court Opinion

ID: 9825942
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 14:40:56.677238+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:41:35.200263
License: Public Domain

*64Ames, G. J.,
concurred in the opinion of the court as to the interpretation of the grant in question, looking merely at the terms in which it was expressed, and such evidence, as to the subject to which it was applied, as had been submitted to the jury; but added, that if, as he understood from the grounds of new trial allowed by the judge who presided when the case was before a jury, the offer of the defendant was to show by evidence that the water of the Annaquetueket River, in its ordinary stages, and unaffected by the dam, stood at the time of the grant, at and above the height of the hole in the rock at the jwnction, such evidence should, in his judgment, have been allowed to pass to the jury. It would certainly, as the grant must be supposed to have granted something, have favored the construction claimed for it by the defendant; and, in his judgment, have rendered it so far ambiguous, that evidence, coming from the acts and use of the water by the parties under the grant, also offered by the defendant and rejected, should have been let in to interpret it.

New trial denied.