42
annual payment of $1, & will grant to the Company the right of entry on the land affected for the purpose of
preserving the line in an efficient state. In my opinion there is at least a licence coupled with an interest, &
the same is not revocable at the will of the Government
See Hurst v. Picture Theatres 1915 1 K.B.1; Jones v.
Taukervibe 1909 II ch 440; Devonshire v. Elgin 20 L.J.
ch. 495.
It is true that the agreement contained in the
letters is indefinite in point of time. This seems to
place on the Government the onus of establishing that
See Llanelly
-
it is determinable by reasonable notice
Railway etc. v. London & N.W. Ry. L.R. 7 H.L. at 567;
see also Crediton Gas Co. v. Crediton W.D.c. 44 T.L.R.369
In my opinion the language of the Government's
letter of 16th April, 1894, & the surrounding circum-
stances show that the pipe line agreement was to exist
as long as the reservoir.
Reverting to the permit, I do not think that the
agreement already come to could be cut down by the lang-
uage of the permit. The right to erect a pipe line on
certain terms had been granted before any permit was
issued, &, in my opinion, is unaffected by the language
thereof.
Furthermore, I do not think it could be success-
fully contended that the permission to erect a pipe line
was granted on condition that the Company only used the
water for its private purposes. The two letters are
entirely silent on this point & there is literally no
evidence to support such a contention, even if such
4.