LACSON 7-. LACSON
309
LACSON v. LACSON BY JAMES H. BLOUNT THE case of Lacson v. Lacson is a cause celtbre in the legal annals of the Island of Negros in the Philippine Archipelago. Negros is the great sugar country of the Philippines. The plaintiff in the above stated case, Don Aniceto Lacson, and the defendant, Don Hilario Lacson, his uncle, were two of the largest sugar planters in the Island. Prior to the law suit now under consideration, they had lived in peace and harmony as neighbors, for many years, on adjoining plantations along the banks of a river which had served to make their estates almost as fertile as the valley of the Nile. By a judicious use of the waters of this river in irrigating their respective cane fields, both had grown rich and prosperous, and both had reared large families in comfort, and even affluence. Just exactly what it was they had fallen out about I never knew, although some of the villagers in the town where the case was tried used to say that the real cause of the trouble had nothing whatever to do with the land, which was the subject matter of the suit. They even went so far as to intimate that the estrangement or family feud was really traceable to the womenfolk of the families in question, and their playing at precedence with each other in the social whirl of the country-side. However, let the case be stated. In the spring of 1903 a great drought, lasting for a number of months, visited the island of Negros. Prior to the institution of the suit, the plaintiff had long been getting water from the river to irrigate his cane fields by means of a canal which passed through the lands of the up-stream man, the defendant, and then flowed on down to his lands. During this drought the up-stream man had entirely cut off the plaintiff's water supply. Plaintiff thereupon dug another canal. Upon learning that the work of
digging this canal was in progress, defendant sent from his estate down stream a detach ment of laborers, who fell upon the laborers of the plaintiff, beat them severely, and put them to flight. The point was that defendant claimed that the canal was being dug upon land which belonged to him; while the plaintiff stoutly maintained that it did not belong to his adversary but to himself, and if not to himself, then that title was still in the State. The strip of land in dispute was not forty feet wide, but it was the only available route by which the plain tiff could tap the' river and get his lands irrigated, otherwise his great cane fields would necessarily dry up. It was a splendid estate, worth a great many thousand dollars, and in the absence of some means of irriga tion would become worthless. The strip of land in dispute was so tiny an area as to be worth very little to the defendant, even if he did own it, but under the circumstances, it was worth a very great deal to the plain tiff. Obviously these facts were within the knowledge of both parties. Hence it was that I made the inquiry which disclosed that personal ill feeling was what kept the up stream man from agreeing with his adver sary quickly upon some compromise instead of seeking thus to injure him. The little battle of the "canal zone" was followed shortly by a suspension of hostilities brought about by a temporary injunction against the up-stream man, granted by a circuit judge who had been sent to Negros especially to pass upon the matter, the regular judge of the district (a native) being disqualified by reason of kinship to some of the parties in interest. This restraining order had forbidden the up-stream man from interfering with the digging of the canal by the plaintiff until theifurther order of the court. During the aforesaid suspension
