Here is an excerpt from a document concerning a legal battle between William Richards and the Atsion Company:
“That said Henry Drinker and John Drinker about 5 years ago, when the said saw mill and dam commonly called and known by the name of Estells mill on the said Atsion River had decayed and fallen down, about the space of 2 years ago did not rebuild the same mill, but afterwards repaired and kept up the dam thereof, and still do keep up the same and did build there a certain water lock to facilitate the transportation of certain boats up and down the Atsion stream to the utter subversion of said agreement as aforesaid and heretofore subsisting between the aforesaid Charles Read and John Estell and contrary to the spirit and design of said recited act and said defendants by their frequent use of said lock in drawing the water constantly, twice of thrice a week, instead of 3 or 4 times a year as formerly in the time of John Estell, this Complainants ore beds below said lock are frequently hindered in their business by the flow of water, owing partly to the junction of the Mechescatuxen stream with the Atsion stream by means of the canal, aforesaid and multiplying thereby the waters in Atsion Stream, in so much, that the said frequent use of said lock by the defendants amounts to a prohibition to the works at Batsto and also to the subtraction of the waters of the Mechescatuxen Branch, to the injury of the Complainants mill seat.”
Lots of goodies here!
The text seems to suggest that the Drinkers did not construct a new mill at the site of Estell's old mill, but why would they have maintained the dam in that case? Jerseyman, have you any thoughts or information on this?
