Daily Los Angeles herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1876-1884, 1881-06-19

tuo iu5t tnIcc ychIsy uutihe Wuioh
time (the last three years. plain
tiffs have claimed, and still claim,
the right to use said waters on their
land and for domestic purposes
"Seventh-That plaintiffs are the
respective owners of the land
claimed by them in their COM
plant, and the respective bitches
therein referred to are used and are
necessary to irrigate the same; and
said bitches have always been In
the exclusive possession and control
of said plaintiffs and their grantors
from about the year of 1874 until
the 25th day of May, 1879.
"Eighth-That on the 25th day
of May. 1887, the plaintiffs were re-
spectively, and for several days
prior thereto, diverting through
said bitches the waters OF said
river to and upon their respective
tracts of land aforesaid, and using
the same thereon for irrigation and
domestic purposes, and the same
was no more than was reasonable
and necessary therefor. By reason
of such uses by plaintiffs, water be.
came diminished in said river and
sufficient thereof could not and did
not reach said city or its water
works (plaintiffs' said bitches hav-
ing their points of diversion above
said city and it's water works) to
supply what was reasonable and
necessary for irrigation and do.
nestle use in said city; and by rea-
son of such diversion by plaintiffs
q number of the Inhabitants of said
city were deprived of what was rea-
sonable and necessary for the irri-
CATION of their land In said city and
for their domestic purposes; and
the defendant city lost on its sale
account of the diversions in each of
the said bitches respectively.
Whereupon on that day, and In Or
der to supply the inhabitants and
land of said city with sufficient
water for said purposes, and in Or
der to regulate and control the dis.
tribution of said waters in the most
beneficial and regular manner, the
said city, by its officers and agents,
entered upon said bitches at their
respective heads and returned the
water therein to said river and
placed therein head gates"
From the foregoing findings it
appears that the pueblo of Los An
geles was established by the Next.
can Government as early as the
year 1881, just Que century ago,
and that during the occupation
and control of said pueblo by the
Mexican Government, the "muni-
cipal authorities exercised control
of and claimed the exclusive right
to Use the waters of the Los An
geles river and all thereof, which
right was duly recognized, ac.
knowledged and allowed by the
owners of the land at the source
and bordering on said river, in
Guiding the grantors of the plain
tifs," and that down to the period
of two or three years last past, the
municipal authorities have con.
tinued to exercise the same control
and have claimed the same rights
with respect to the waters of said
river as was previously done by
the pueblo. 1t further appears
from the findings in the case that
the use of said waters by the plain
tiffs ami their grantors, WAS, in its
origin, by permission and with the
license auG consent of the munich
pal authorities, and that such use
has ever since been with the per-
mission and consent of said au-
thorities, and not adversely, nor
claimed as a right, until within
the last three years, during which
time (the last three years. plain
tiffs have asserted an adverse claim
to said waters.
Thus it will be seen that for near.
ly one hundred years the city OF
Los Angeles had asserted a claim
les river, and such claim has been
recognized by all persons interest
ed from the head of the stream and
| along its banks, including
the plaintiffs and their
grantors. We aay includ-
ing the plaintiffs, because it ap.
pears from the sixth finding that
the use of the waters of the river
was under the license, permission
and consent of the defendant, until
within the last two or three years.
1t was conceded on the argument
that the city had appropriated a
portion of the waters of the Los
| Angeles river, before the plaintiffs
constructed their bitches, and that
the use by the city to the extent of
such appropriation could not be
interfered with by any subsequent
appropriation; but it was contend
ed that the rights of the city were
limited to the amount appropriated
at the time plaintiffs or their
grantors bull their ditch. Such a
construction of the defendants
rights would not be in harmony
with the facts found by the Court.
From the very foundation of the
Pueblo in 1851, the right to all the
waters of the river was claimed by
the Pueblo, and that right was re.
cognized by all the owners of land
on the stream, from its source, and,
under recognition and acknowl.
edgment of such right, plaintiffs'
grantors dug their bitches, and, by
the permission and consent Of the
municipal authorities, plaintiffs
thereafter used the waters Of the
river. Can they now assert a claim
adverse to that of the city? We
think not. The city, under various
acts of the Legislature, has sue
ceeded to all the rights Of the
former Pueblo. (Act approved
April A, 1850; Statute of 1854, p,
2O5; Statute Of 1857, p, 1923
We have not examined the rights
of the defendant as they existed
under the Spanish and Mexican
laws applicable to Pueblos, for the
findings in this case render such
examination unnecessary.
From the fifth finding it appears
that when the acts complained of
were done by the officers and agents