Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1888-12-02
THE WATER CASE.

The decision Of Judge Rising in
the case of Swssny W. Schulz, ct al
was publishsd in ysstsrday's AP-
PEAL. Az the case is now decided,
. few words relative to this litiga-
ton are not cut Of place.
Some years ago . corporation do
ing Guinness in wood, lumber and
water, spent large sums OF money
building reservoirs in the msunt-
aims for the purpose OF empounding
water for huming, etc.
One Of these fumes, after thread
ing the spurs OF several mountains,
emptied itself at Laksview, and the
water, amounting to about 800
inches, made its way down the ra-
vine to Swift's ranch, where it was
appropriated by him and used for
years,
A. Raffetto also appropriated
some of the water, and subsequent
", s. p. Davis, Otto Schulz and
Patrick Brannan purchased land on
the banks of the stream.
Raffetto, Swsepy and Davis, be-
lieving that q company who had in
vested nearly million dollars
bringing the water into the ravlne
were entitled to control it. paid the
flume company altogether 1925
year for the use of the waters
more nominal SUN considering the
benefits which accrued. Mr.. Schulz
would not pay = cent, arguing,
probably, in his own mind, that the
others on the stream would pay for
him rather than lose the watsr, snd
it would come snywsy. IN this be
was quits. badly mistaken. Al
thsseA not cultivating any land to
speak 81, he damned the waters Of
:he stream and announced that no
one below him should have . drop.
He tore down dams above hin and
would mot lot others on the stream
even have water for stock. When
asked to allow others to have water
his reply invariably was:
sNot = d. Drop"
Sweeny, in order to save his
crops, took the water out above
him. A suit followed, and Judge
Edwards ruled that the hume COM
pany had no right to control water
after it left the end of their f1ume,
and awarded Schulz 5000 and over,
for damages to = piece of land that
had never been touched with q
pillow, although the defendant,
Sweeny, only took water out OF the
channel that his predecessors in
ownership had used before Schulz
ever saw the stream.
The other case was one in which
Sweeny was plaintiff, Schulz, Davis
and Raffetto as defendants, and
Davis plaintiff in a cross complaint
against Schulz, a co-defendant-
Judge Risin. presided, and
through the entire case showed
hims.lf fully acquainted with all o.
its rami6catiens, and in spite OF al
attempts to befog the issue. he KEEP
the main points in view always
Before the case was over he statee
frem the bench that his chief ide;
in water cases was to keep in view
the needs OF the country and assis
a. much a. possible in Its ceveloP
nent. He said that the old ripar
ian theory of water was adapted t
= country like England, where waite
had to be gotten rid Of, but here tn
soil called for different disposal Q
water. He also said that 1T wa
evident that the water in dIsput
vas enough to be of great benef
to them all if divided with . fal
and liberal spirit, and he advise
the litigants TO meet and agree ho'
they would utilize the water SO tha
each man could, on certain days
use all Of it. Otherwise he sal
that his decision under the evidenc
before HIM might be ruinous