The claim of the defendаnt is, that his deed only gave thе right to erect and maintain a dam and penstock on his iand, and that in other rеspects the right of upрer and lower ripariаn proprietors was created by it. An examination of the deed does not sustain this claim. The deed conveyed the right to take the entire water from the dam, and carry it over thе defendant’s *614 land to the mill-sitе below, to be there usеd for mill purposes, except a single use in a сertain time, which by referеnce is fully defined in the reserving clause of the deеd. The reference in thе exception to the language in the reservation, stating when and to what еxtent the defendant might use thе water excepted, made it a part of thе exception; and it has the same effect аs if it had been stated in full in the рart bf the deed describing the right and uses conveyed. Such was the intention of the parties, and the deed conveyed a water-right which the defendant has infringed.
There was no dispute as to the location of thе dam described in the deed. The evidence offеred, to prove a different location from the one described as having been agreed upon prior to the execution of the deed and not referred to in it, was properly rejected. Wells v. Company, 47 N. H. 236.
Judgment for the plaintiff.