| Date: Fri 09-Sep-1994 Paper Page: 7 Publication: Weekend Nation Byline: Mark Niles TWO WEEKS after an injunction was granted by the High Court restricting persons from inhibiting the flow of the Three Houses Spring in St. Philip, the path of the water was again blocked yesterday. The "water war" in St. Philip erupted in July when landowner, John Marshall erected a sluice gate which farmers in the area claimed stopped water from getting to their farms. On August 19, seven of those affected, St. Catherine Farms Ltd., Nigel Henderson Sealy, Erskine Sealy, Miriam Burke, Shamrock Trading Company Ltd., Vinson Alleyne and A&T Farms Ltd. had their attorneys John A. Connell QC and Ernest Jackman file a writ against P.J Holding Ltd. asking that the sluice gate be removed. The injuction was granted by Mr. Justice Federick Waterman and the sluice gate was removed, but yesterday when a WEEKEND NATION team visited the site, two wooden structures were in place blocking the flow of water. The injunction granted by Mr. Justice Waterman read in part: It is ordered that the defendant, P.J. Holding Limited by itself, its agents and/or servants or otherwise until further order: 1: Be restrained and an injunction is hereby granted restraining the Defendant from placing or allowing to be placed in the water course known as The Three Houses Stream anything restricting, preventing or otherwise interfering or obstructing the said uninterrupted flow of water to the plaintiff lands through the said water course running across the lands of the defendant Wiltshire in the parish of St. Philip in this island or from permanently damming up the said flow of water on the lands of the defendants or in any other way diverting, diminishing and/or impeding the course of the water therein. 2: Do forthwith remove all obstructions to the said uninterrupted flow of the water to the Plaintiffs said lands through the said water course across the said lands of the Defendant and that the Defendant do further forthwith remove all pipes imbedded in the said water course for the purposes of diverting or impeding the course of the said water course across the said lands of the Defendants. 3: Do forthwith reinstate the said water course through which the said water flows to its former state or condition. When contacted, Connell said that as far as he knew, the flow of the water should not have been blocked again. |