Weekly Trinity journal., 1877-02-17
THE DEBRIS CASE.

The recent trial in Sacramento county
between a mining company on the one
hand, and farm owner on the other, is
of some interest to all who possess prop
erty of either kind in situations where
there is necessarily Il conflict Of interest.
The jury assessed the damages at four
thousand dollars, and stay of proceed
ings for sixty days was otfered by the
Court. An appeal will! no doubt be taken
at once to the Supreme Court. In the
meanwhile another case, broader in its
scope, has been instituted from Placer
county, involving the question Of the
right of miners TO use the beds of natural
streams-the natural outlets to the mines,
as dumping ground, and in order to get
a speedy decision from the highest tribu-
nal in the land the action was commence
ed in United States instead of State
Court. AS this question directly affects
the two great interests of mining and
farming, n decision by the Supreme
Court of the United States will be looked
for with far greater interest than was the
simple case presented to the Sacramento
jury. If the miners win, it means the
unavoidable destruction of thousands of
acres of the finest farming lands in the
State if they lose, it follows that the
abandonment of many valuable placer
mines, which can only be worked by the
hydraulic process is only a question Of
time.
SO far as the question taken to the ma
tlona courts is concerned, the miners of
this county have no direct interest. The
sediment deposited in the Trinity River
reaches the ocean soon after leaving the
mountain canyons, and involves no dis
truction of valuable farming property in
its course. The same, however, cannot
be said in reference to the principle in
volved in the Sacramento decision.
The instructions to the jury in this case
cover the ground the United States Court
will be called to pass upon, bat, OF course
the action of all inferior courts is subject
to review. One point of the instructions
gives as basis for the jury's deter. nina
ton, that damages can only be assessed
for the land actually destroyed. Thus,
if the destruction Of one parcel OF land
causes depreciation of value Of the re-
lnainder of the tract, that fact cannot be
taken into consideration. That point
may be good law, but on the other hand
it may not always be strict justice. For
instance, farmer in the possession of a
valuable tract Of land would make valua-
BILE improvements. The destruction Of
the farm would Of necessity greatly de-
preciate the value of these improvements,
leaving them somewhat in the position Of
n water ditch, which would be held at q
high valuation while it covered large
area of mining land, but worthless and
abandoned when the claims were worked
out. Where tailings are thrown directly
upon land, or so near to it that the wa
ters Of the stream must inevitably flow
them upon it, the court held that the par
ties so depostng the sediment were re-
sponsble for the damages. We append
herewith the text Of the eight instruction: !:
(Modifed by the Court from an instruc-
tion asked by detendant.) If the defend
ant discharged in the usual and ordinary
working of mines, water, tailings, earthly
aud other matter upon the banks of Ar
kansas creek, Mt places remote from plain
titf's land, and such matter, in the course
of nature and from the effect Of natural
floods, flowing in and down said creek,
found its way down the creek and was
deposited, portions of it, upon plaintiff 5
land, the defendant would not be liable to
damages-but if the deposit of sand and
gravel and sediment wa. carried directly
! upon the lands by the water used in the
mine or, if the deposit Of sand, gravel
and sediment was deposited in such close
proximity to the land that is must Of ne
cessity pass upon the land Of paintitf. the
defendant would be liable for all damage
done by defendants.