The Arizona champion., 1890-03-08

They then allege that they have n adaquate way of estimating tn
 damage which they will suffe
 should defendants, or either of them
 do as they have threatened to d;
 as herein stated, for the reason
 among others, that the destruction
 of the food grasses and herbage on
 plaintiffs lands will result in de-
 priving plaintiffs cattle of necessa-
 ry food, thereby causing great de-
 terioration in flesh and consequent
 value, which loss and deterioration cannot be adequately determined by witnesses; which will result in the destruction of plaintiffs, business, will waste and impair their freehold and obstruet them and each of them In the use of their said property. They allege, therefore, that they have no plain, adequate and speedy remedy at law; and that it will be impossible to establish the amount of damages which said plaintiffs
 
 will suffer by the wrong or trespass of any particular one of said defend ants.
 The prayer of the plaintiffs is for a Judgment and decree of the court.
 lst. That said defendants have not, nor has either of them, any right of way for any of his or their sheep over said lands of plaintiffs or any part thereof, except over and along the highways aforesaid; that they have not, nor has either of them, any right to graze or pasture any of his or their sheep thereon or on any part thereof.
 2nd. That, pending this action, said defendants and each of them, their and ca eh of their agents, ser wants and employees, be enjoined from driving any of his or their sheep upon any of said lands, ex- cept over and along said highways, or permitting any of them to go, graze or pasture thereon, and that upon the final decree herein said injunction be made perpetual.
 Sd. For such other and further relief as may be just and equitable together with their costs in this be- half incurred.
 The Supreme Court of the Terri tory, in affirming the judgment of the court of the Third Judicial Dis trict, did not consider the question of the misjoinder of defendants, but estel it's judgment upon the want of equity in the bill. It might be to sustain a bill which, like this. united fifteen or twenty differ cut defendants, to restrain them from committing a trespass where, if the parties are guilty or should attempt to cammit the trespass, they do it-without concert of action, at different times, in different parts of a large district of country such as here described, and each in his own way md by his own action or that of his servants. But waving this question, we are of opinion that the bill has no equity in it.
 The appellants being stock-raisers, like the defendants, whose stock are raised and fattened on the unoccu- pied pubic lands of the United States mainly, seek by the purchase and ownership of parts of these lands, detached through a large body of the public domain, to ex- cIude the defendants from the use of this public domain as a grazing ground, while they themselves ap- all of it to their own ex- elusive use. This they propose to do, not by any act of Congress or of any legislative body whatever, but by means of this bill in chancery obtaining an injunction against the who they allege to be the owners of 100000 sheep grazing upon these public lands, which shall exclude defendants from the use of them, and thereby secure to them selves the exclusive right to pasture their 10000 head of cattle upon 5he same lands.
 l. we look at the condition of the of these lands, oS which ,he plaintiffs rely for relief, we are till more impressed with the ipjus- ice of this attempt. A calculation