View report page

67
the Company's mains and to the satisfaction of the Company's
advisers, they were instructed to commence an action
for an injunction. Recognising the importance of the
principle at stake, and feeling convinced that no legal
responsibility rested upon the Vestry to provide a permanent
support to the Company's mains sucli as that
demanded, the Vestry decided to contest the Company's
claim. An interim injunction was applied for by the
Company and granted by the Court, and a writ issued
against the Vestry for an injunction and damages, the
Vestry being permitted to proceed with the construction of
the sewer, while the filling in of the trench was stopped.
Notwithstanding the views expressed and action taken
by the Company, they were apparently undesirous of
taking the opinion of the Courts on the legal aspects of
the case, as various offers were made by them to the Vestry
for a settlement of the question, but the proposals made
were of such a nature that the Vestry, without receding
from the position they had taken up, could not accept
them. Ultimately, finding that the Vestry were determined
to adhere to the view they had adopted, the
Company came to the conclusion that the question of the
support to their mains in the street referred to could easily
be arranged, and proposed to stop further proceedings if
the Vestry agreed to the action being put an end to on the
terms of each party paying their own costs.
Inasmuch as the Vestry had no desire to enter into a
costly law suit with the Company provided the principle
for which they had contended was recognised, the Vestry
acceded to this latter proposal on the distinct understanding
that the interpretation to be placed npon the
Company's statement " that the question of the support to
e 2