CO129-514-6 Question of legality of sale of water to Tai Koo Sugar Refining Co. Ltd.- from... 6-12-1928 - 23-12-1929 — Page 44

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.