Sacramento daily record-union., 1883-10-25
TIE LATEST HYDRaULIC MIEIEG De.
Ci5I0E.

The decision of Judge Keyser in the hy-
draulio mining case of Noyes against the
Spring Valley Company makes perpetual an
njluction TO restrain defendant from flow.
fngmining debris upon thelands of plaintiff
The decision Is model of conciseness. 1t
is substantial gain for the valley liti-
giants who are contesting the right of
miners to send npon lands below the de.
trisus and debris of mining oper.
ations, and must materially advance the
position Of the assaulting party upon hy-
draulc mining. The case will unques-
tions5ly go to Che Supreme Court, but
there would not appear to be any strong
reason Co look for its reversal or modifi-
cation. Aside from the questions of fact
involved, and which the Court finds for
plsiutiG. the law as stated by the Court
would APPEAR to be in accordance with
accepted doctrines and sound reason, and
to agree with the decisions already
made on this important subject. The de.
cision wsa probably anticipated by the
miners. as it is in line with The former
rulings of Judge Keyser; nevertheless,
the effect cannot be otherwise than de-
pressing in the mining regions. On the
other hand. it viii inspire in the agricult.
ural sections greater confidence in the
position of the farmers and valley resi-.
dents whose possessions are nenaced by the
deposition Of mining debris. The Court
holds that the testimony established the
fact that the land Of plaintiff was valuable
grazing land prior to the injury com.
planned of, but that large part of it is
now covered over by detritus coming from
She mine of the defendant by means of a
canal maintained by it; that the deposits
would not come upon the land but for the
canal that the depositions render the
land valueless, and practically deprive
plsintiff Of it's use; that the de-
positions continue, and that the area
Of land being injured thereby constantly
broadens. Now, says the Court, these
Shings constitute continuing trespass and
nuisance, and it follows that the one
must cease and the other be forbidden.
Certainly this is model of judicial brevity
And probably it is as we'll that the Court
does not weigh down its opinion with long
argument TO substsntiate its position, or
by the recital of the decisions of other
Courts seek to justify its findings of law.
'The defense of the defendant is more elab-
orstely treated. DeFendaat pleaded delay
IN instituting the suit, acquiessnce and
prescription. The Court condenses She law
on these points as defined by The latest and
highest authorities. In brief it is as fol-
lows The defense Of delay stands upon
the same footing in equity as In a Court Of
law, and can hence have no effect except
TIL sction is barred by the statute of lin.
SsAtions. In this case the action Of plaintiff
was commenced while the trespass was be.
ing committed, and plaintiffs right of
action is therefore not barred. Acquiesence
is where one having the right to object
stands by and permits an act to be done, and
iE suoh manner as to induce the doing.
and to lead the doer to suppose that he has
the assent of the other. The evidence, saws
Judge Keyser, does not show such acuuies.
enes IN the case before him. Besides that
doctrine can never be invoked where the
trespass is continuing aud the nuisance
constantly increasing, and where, if the re-
lief asked for is not granted, the plaintiffs
property will be destroyed. Outside of,
and beyond the law, this statement would
seem 10 bs logical, and to rest upon such
plain reasons as TO be undeniable. As to
prescription, Judge Keyser says It can
never confer the right TO repeat trespass
or Co continue the one that has been com.
mitted. The right of defendant to over.
Sow plaintiffs land and cover it with sed.
iment cannot be acquired by prescription,
except the acts were uninterrupted, as well
as the occupation by the waterhow and
the sediment deposit, to the same extent
and vita the same resulting injury, and
with the knowledge of the plaintiff, and