Lewiston teller. [volume] (Lewiston, North Idaho) 1878-1900, 1881-11-03

!
Dslsol W. Breazlsy.
This was an action for damages to
plaintiffs land and growing crops by
'eason of trespass Of defendant in 60
ng upon plaintiffs premises and en-.
arging the Lewiston water ditch thro'
he same. The damages claimed was
30, 800. The defendant denied the tres
pass and the damages in any amount
by reason Of any 'respass of the defen-
aant set up his right to SO upon plain
lifts premises for the purpose Of such
enlargement under q license given by
plaintiff to defendants grantees in
1873, upon which said grantors had
several thous, nd dollars in the
Of q ditch for milling.
mining and agricultural purposes, and
that no revocation Of such license had
been given before the expenditure of
said money, and that defendant and
his grantors had found that said ditch
had not been dug large enough to car
ry sufficient water to answer the pur-
poses for which the license had been
granted, and that the enlargement be-
came a necessity to meet the require
ments of said license. The writ n
instrument of license limited the size
of the ditch in no other terms than the
following: Sufficient land for the con-
struction of the ditch through plain.
tifrs premises for milling, mining and
agricultural purposes.
The case was tried at the Spring
term of the court held at Lewiston, BY
jury of twelve men, and large mum
Ter of witnesses were sworn and exam
ined onsboth sides, and the case sub
mitted to the Jury under the writer
charge of the Court as to the law o
the case. The jury, after being GU
many hours, reported that it was i'm
possible for them to agree upon yer
dict, and they we're discharged, and n
second jury empanneled at that term
On Monday of last week the case wa
again up for trial, and a new Jury Wa
empanneled and sworn to try the cause
and four days of the Court were col
sumed in the hearing Of the cause, dur
ing VIII oh large number of witnesse
we're sworn on both sides, and in tn
} forenoon OF the fifth day the Court sui
mitted the cause to the jury under h
charge as to the law to the case.-
!, Meantime the jury had visited Il
premises, about three miles dists'
from the court room, under charge
! a sworn officer. The jury returned {
Friday forenoon. Late Saturday, q
ternoon they came into court and
ported that it was impossible for the
to agree, and the court discharg'
o them. This case has been as hot
contested on both sides as any case e
= er before this court. Sullivan ar
n Maxwell appearing for the plant
d and Rand, Leland and Poe for the d
re PENDANT. 1t wasl o case in which I
Is whole people living along the dit
= from head to foot, q distance Of TO
+ miles, took the deepest interest. So'
We from the fact that in case the plant
rs should recover, they themselves deem
= they had q similar cause Of acti
70 against the defendant, and others frt
:. the fact that If similar causes of acti
is should be maintained, the result wor
t. be to entirely destroy the protect
1t which licensee would have under
"a license for his money invested il
n piece Of property that was intended
ut confer benefit upon all that lived
the vicinity Of that property. as "
as upon the licenses himself. 1t
in difficult to say whether or not the c
i'd will be retired by another jury. Il
i'd generally conceded that the case
ga ABLY conducted on both sides, and 4
ne all there was in the case was broul
nd forth, and that the jury had the
he benefit of the law of the case as gi'
tbs by the court.
Of