26
and 15th of May 1893 could be looked at to aid the
construction, for this would be varying a deed by parol
evidence. Further in our opinion it would be impossible
for the Government to successfully maintain any action for
retification of the lease and supplemental deed. To be
successful in such an action they would have to allege
fraud or undue influence, as to which there is not a
shadow of evidence, or mistake.
To succeed on the ground
of mistake they would have to show some antecedent agreement
setting out the true agreement between the parties (Craddock
Brothers V. Hunt. 1923 2 Ch. 136). There is no such
agreement here. The only agreement is that contained in
the Conditions of Sale which as before stated give no help
to the Government. In our opinion, therefore, the Company
is not prevented by the lease and supplemental deed under
which they hold the water rights from selling water.
As to (2). We agree with Mr. Potter that the permit
to lay the pipes is in fact a licence coupled with an
interest and that the Government cannot cancel the permit
as to the pipe line. There seems to be nothing which
shows that this permit was granted to the Company on the
basis that the Company should use the water for its private
purposes. We do not think that we can usefully add any-
thing to what has been said by Mr. Potter in his opinion
on this point.
as to (3 ). The question whether the Government
could obtain an injunction to restrain the Company from
selling water on the ground that it is out side the objects
of the Company and therefore ultra vires the Company raises
a somewhat difficult question. Most of the cases dealing
with the rights of third parties who have been demnified by
actions ultra vires a Company are cases relating to
statutory Companies.
In the case of National Telephone
4.