, 1881-05-14
The Plume Case.

rune q MANUFACTURING ccniPdbt 'e' ~
J. Livingston: ssn,rel Eses 7. J. RIB
nson, C. Lloyd, Berry Camp, 5. ShoernaseT,
Andrew Carter, J. L. Gwinn, Fred Rod, ID.
Conlisk G. W. Irelaad, d. N. jesse and
Jacob Holbrook Messrs. Sharpstein. George
and Allen represented the plaintiffs, with
Messrs. Caton & Crowley and Anders Tor
the defcndent- After the empanelling OF
the jury they were taken up the creek In
order to have a personal view of the case.
The defense made quite lengthy argument
to have the supplementary articles OF rncor-
porat;on excluded as testimony The first
witness called was Henry N.berton, a
surveyor employed In Chapman L Boyers,
who testified to the condition Of the hume
and its probable effects and diseomforts to
the owners Of the prop.fty tarodsh which 1t
passed. o. +. Wagner on being rallied;
testified tha. the value OF land on Mil creek
to be SO per acre and that he Judged from
his general knowledge OF land throughout
the country He testified that Hume
wo1id only be little inconvenience, but at
the same time neither . thrasher, header
wagon or a man On horseback could drive
under it. The top height OF the hume
would be from to 8 feet. That the loss OF
water would be gallons to the cubic yard,
and thatif the Hume was properly constructed
jams and overfows would but seldom occur.
During the entire morning the sttorne ys
were arguing one question and then another
with all the fierceness immasinabie. The
counsels for the defense taking several ex-
ceptions to the judges rulings. As We go to
press U. Cared, Of Umatillz county, was
put On the stand.
Messrs. TruaI, NJ. s. Dudley, Lai:row, B.
F. Stone, John Dovell and ". H. Gilbert
were examined as to the probable effects OF
the damage to be incurred by the fiume.
They differed somewhat as TO the extent Of
the damage but were Of the opinion tba. It
was but small Dr. B.alock did not consider
the damages more than S175, but admitted.
that there was certain inconvenience and
leakage on fnme, aud that it was OCCASION
ally subject to a jam and overflow. Mr..
Wm. Slime had no opinion as to the value Of
the timber, but did not consider that the
division of part Of the waters would have
any perceptible effects on the trees. George
Delaney said that he did not consider the
land worth the government price, but in
connection with the other land he thought it
worth so per acre 1t the utmost Mr.
Walls, an employee of the company, testi-
fled that the grade of the fume was four
irches to the rod. Fumes will jam some.
times Mr.. Stevenson was of the OPINION
that it would make considerable damage.
The damage would be about $40 to $50 per
acre Here the plaintiffs reste,l their case
and the defendant was called upon the stand.
Mr.. Livingston testified that he vas the
owner of 400 acres Of land. The soil through
which the flume passed was alluvial soil
with gravel patches here and there. On
this land he had timber three feet through
willow, alder and maple. The value Of my
land before the tiume was built was $1,000
and now ldon't cons,l,r j: worth more than
5000. 1t cuts off entirely 25acres Of land, as
the PASS proposed BY the hnme company
passes through Il swamp which could not be
used in the winter mouths. besides the cut
through the bluff has been ba.lly washed by
the floods, and will eventually become worse.
The work dome ly :he company has Oh
struetel the creek and changed the water
course. Should ally If the waters Of the
creek he divided it wou!d seriously effect
the growth Of the trees as in places when the
creek changed its Course tie trees that we're
| formerly prospeiins are now deal. had a
| summer residence " Inch rented each year,
which by the tiume was spoiit rs it passes
| Immediately in the font yard. james Bry-
| ant Thought that the damage would be about
| $500. VI. a. DIN kwaicr thought ;ha. Il
farm cut up by Hume was damaged t, the
extent OF $500, while &. r. Frazer thought
that $1,000 woulI about cover the damage
Mr.. Copeland thought the fiame would entail
considerable inconrenie. .ce, besides cutting
off a certain tract of land AMI uas Of the
opinion tha. tie damage WA frurn six TO
eight hundred dollars Alex. Calreron Was
of the opinion that SS1o wouli lrins Mr.
Livingstone out even. Oscar Ynans consi.l-
cred the damage a. 500 Samuel Vausoik
Noah Davidson and Mr. inner F. Taylor
were of the opinion that the damage
amounted to about 500. The Plaintiffs
then brought Me-srs. john ~ Hin, Wm.
Wells and +. J. Boyer "n the r-buttal
Their testimony was ab,'nt :he same in effect
As the witne:>e in the opening Of the case.
Here the c.i-- r'-sre,l aul arguments were
opened bv the plaintiffs: II is hardly ex-
p:ct.l that the case viii go Lefore the Jury
before late hour.
| The jury after Icing nut for several hours
returned tine following verdict: ''rhe Jury
in the case of the Mil Cre-k Flunie 4 Manu-
featuring Company rs. Il. J. Livingston, fed
for the defendant in the sum Of $40.
J. NJ JEssEE, Foreman.
| SO cn,ieth the First Chapter. The ques-
ton nov To- ask is. HAS the principle involv-
| 81 heen lryaliy and lawfully Sc tied