کے
Company was to be in any way restricted as to user of the
water so impounded. This would, we should have thought,
have given the Government an opportunity of dealing witn
the matter by providing some restrictions as to the user
of the water. Unfortunately this was not done. On the
contrary the Government did not adopt the proposed amend-
ment, but on the 5th August 1896 entered into a supplemental
deed which was endorsed on the lease, which, so far from
restricting the user of the water, seems rather to nave
enlarged the rights of the Company in regard thereto.
This indenture recites that it was one of the terms of
sale of the Inland Lot No. 1550 that the Company should
be at liberty to construct a reservoir and impound therein
the natural flow of waters from the hillsides upon and
across the Lot and to make use of and divert the same, and
it also recites the fact that the lease contains no specific
mention of any right to impound, make use of, and divert
water and that the Company had applied for a grant for this
purpose, and the deed by its operative part granted to the
Company its successors and assigns the exclusive right to
impound the flow of water through, on, to or over Inland Lot
No. 1330 and to make use of and divert the same. Here again
we would point out that in the grant under this deed there
is nothing in any way to limit the right of the Company as
to their user of the water. The grant is to make use of'
and if it was intended to restrict the Company from selling
the water such a restriction should have been included in
this deed.
In the absence of any such limitation or
restriction in our opinion the words 'to make use of' are
sufficiently wide to enable the Company to sell and dispose
of the water at a profit to themselves. In our opinion if
the matter now came before the Courts the Courts could only
construe the lease and supplemental deed on the words found
therein, and we do not think that the letters of the 12th
3.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.