Daily Los Angeles herald., 1879-04-08

rendered In the former action oper-
ates as bar between the parties
here.
Judgment and order affirmed.
WALLACE. G. ].
We concur:
NILES, ].
MCKINsTRY, ].
OPINION OF RHODES, ].
In the former action brought by
the plaintiff against the defend
ants, the complaint alleged:
That the plaintiff at. q time
named twas and still is entitled to
the full and free use and enjoy
ment of all the water flowing in
the river Los Angeles, and to all
waters flowing In the ditch herein
after mentioned, and In the full,
free and exclusive use of said ditch"
1.-The Canal and Reservoir Conn
pany's ditch); that the plaintiff
was in the actual use and enjoy
ment of portion of the waters of
the river-three irrigating heads
through and by means of the ditch;
that the defendants did, and still
continue, wrongfully to divert the
waters from the ditch, and use aud
consume the same upon their own
lands to the plaintiffs damage,
etc.
It is further alleged that the Pu-
eblo de Los Angeles was, from its
first settlement, about the year
1770. up to the Incorporation of the
city of Los Angeles, entitled to the
use Of all the waters of the river,
and did claim and use the same;
that the city succeeded to all the
rights therein OF the Pueblo; that
the Canal and Reservoir Company
constructed q reservoir in the city,
and q ditch leading from the river
to the Reservoir, which, at the
commencement of that action were
in the possession of the plaintiff
under q lease of said company, and
were used by the city to supply Its
Inhabitants with water; that the
defendants claim an interest in the
Rancho Los Feliz, situated on the
river, and are in possession of por-
tions thereof, and deny the plain.
tiff's right to the waters of the
river; that they have diverted the
waters from the ditch, upon their
own lands, aud threaten to con-
tinue SO to do. The prayer was for
an Injunction and for damages.
The answer denies the plaintiffs
alleged ownership and rights to the
use or appropriation of the water OF
the River, or the water flowing In
the ditch. 1t also AYERS the grant
Of the Los Feliz rancho In l843, the
issue Of o patent for the same In
1858, and the acquisition of the
title, by the defendants; and AYERS
that they, as riparian proprietors,
are entitled to the reasonable use of
the waters of the river, for irriga.
ton and domestic uses, that they
have never taken more than such
reasonable amount, and that they
and their grantors have continuous.
ly, since 1858, claimed and used the
water flowing IN the ditch, to the
amount of two irrigating heads.
1t also alleges that the grantors of
the defendant constructed the ditch
from the River to and upon the
ranch; that they afterwards granted
the same to the Canal and Reser-
vofr Company, subject to certain
conditions and covenants; that the
Company extended the same to the
reservoir, and afterwards leased the
same to the City, and that by vir-
tue OF those covenants and condi-
tiOns, they were entitled to take
from the ditch all the water neces-
sary for the irrigation of the rancho,
which has never exceeded two irri-
eating heads. The defendants also
set up the Statute of Limitations.
The Court found that the Los
Feliz Rancho was granted by the
Mexican Government in 1913; that
u patent, in pursuance OF the de.
cree of confirmation OF the title to
the rancho, was issued in 1858; that
II 10 bounded on the east by the
River; that the defendants-who
have been the owners of the rancho
since 187l-and their grantors have,
since the grant of the ranch, con.
tInuously claimed and exercised
the right to take water from the
said River for the purpose Of irri-
eating the rancho, adversely to the
"plaintiff and the whole world;n
that they have not taken more than
their fair proportion of water for
irrigation, as riparian proprietors.
It Is also found that the ditch
and right of way were granted, as
stated in the answer-reserving the
right to use from the ditch all the
water necessary to irrigate the
rancho-and, that the plaintiff is
the lessee of the ditch, and has no
other right therein than as such
lessee.
It Is further found that at the
announcement of this action the
city had a surplus OF water above
what was needed for irrigation In
the city, which 1t was selling for
irrigating lands without the CITY:
and that there is a surplus of water
In the ditch over and above the
needs Of the city.
There Is no finding as to the right
or title of the city In or to the
waters Of the river.
Judgment was given that the
plaintiff take nothing by the action
and that defendants recover their
costs.
The complaint In the present
action states that the plaintiff is.
and for q long time has been, the
owner Of the waters OF the river,
and 10 entitled to the full, free and
Gxcluslve use of the waters of the |
rivor. and the waters flowing in the
dIfohes connected with the river, !
Ind has the right to regulate and
Donfrol the use aud dIstpibueknn
|noroof. The reudaindo< o{<
4 n The pqqoI 1rm ~