?
T
{
Hon Col.Secy.
thetatt ut sagg
408 40240
RECE
REG 10 DE 00
The question which I understand I am ask-
ed is whether the Government can require the E.E.Tel Co, to
remove their cables at their own expense, if such removal is
considered desirable by the Government.
to re-
As regards the 3rd.cable mentioned in the
letter of the Col.Secy No.249 of 11th.March, power
voke the concession without payment of compensation is ex-
pressly reserved.
As regards the other permissions to lay
cables &c., no such reservation is made;but the question a-
rises what is the position of the parties. The bed of the
harbour belongs to the Crown and the cable companies were
it this was merely allowed to lay their cables on it. I take
a written License. There was no Grant by Deed. There was real
ly what amounts to a License to have the cables there. A Li-
cense is revokable, not só a Grant by deed.
In Wood v. Leadbitter 13 harzo and Wel-
sby p.845 Baro Alkrson puts this case;-
"Suppose the case of a parol license to
come upon my lands and there to make a watercourse to flow on the land of the license. In such a case there is no valid grant of the watercourse and the license remains a mere li- cense, and therefore capable of heing revoked. On the other hand if such a license were granted by deed then the question would be on the construction of the deed whether it amounted
to