The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1892-04-02
OGDEN.
AN IMPORTANT WATER SUIT.
Judge Miner decides Long and Tedious
Contest.

Contest
Only one case came up in the First dis
trict court yesterday, which was that of
John Stalker ct a.. vs. Cyrus Rawson ct al,
trustee of the Wilson Irrigating company,
in which the court rendered a decision in
favor of the plaintiffs. The cause has been
in litigation since the goth of May, 1889,
and the decision settles the rights of the
plaintiffs, as disputed by the canal COM
pany.
In the complaint filed in the clerks Of
fee the plaintiffs allege that on or about
the year 1854, the plaintiffs, their grantors
amp predecessors in interest in Weber
county, territory of Utah, made, dug and
constructed q certain ditch or canal at a
point above the Weber river bridge and
nearly opposite Twenty-fourth street,
in Ogden City, and extending thence in a
westerly direction for about two miles,
known at that time as the Western canal,
ana by means thereof diverted and appro-
priated from the Weber river large guam
tlty of water heretofore unapproprated.
THAI the said ditch was so made and
constructed that 1t would and did take and
divert from the said Weber river stream
or flow Of water eight feet wide and two
feet deep TO be and the same was used by
the plaintiffs and their grantors and their
predecessors in interest for the purpose of
jrrigating their lands and premises there
lying and being fer AGRICULTURAL and other
domestic uses and purposes.
That from the point where said ditch in
tersects with the Weber river 10 the point
where the Wilson Irrigation company's
ditch connects herewith, a distance of
about one-half mile the carrying capacity
Of ba SDid rahh hos al f.,
but from the point where the said Wilson
Irrigation company's ditch connects with
the plaintiffs said ditch to the end thereof
the size and conveying capacity is the same
as originally made and constructed by
plaintiffs, their grantors and predecessors
in interest.
That ever since the said year of 1854, the
plaintiffs, their grantors and predecessors
in interest have been, and the plaintiffs do
now, except for the wrongs and interior
ences hereinafter complained of, by and
through their said ditch divert, appropri-
ate, conduct and use a stream or flow of
water from the Weber river, eight feet
wide and TWO feet deep, to and upon said
lands for irrigating the same and for Gull
nary and other domestic uses and purposes
and adversely to all the world.
That on the 18th day of May, 1889. the
said defendants wrongiully and forcibly
closed the water gate placed in said ditch
of the plaintiffs at the point where the said
Wilson Irrigation company's ditch Joins
thereto and INSTRUCTED and prevented any
ard all OF the water from flowing therein
down to and upon thelands of the plaintiffs
to the great and irreparable damage and
Injury TO plaintiffs ana each of them, and
threatened to again obstruct and TO con-
tinue to obstruct the flow of water through
the said ditch to and upon the said lands of
plaintiffs. That plaintiffs have several
D f1..r,-s L.
each year in valuable crops, which are now
wholly and necessarily dependent for water
flowing through and in said ditch for the
necessary and needful irrigation. And he
said crops will be utterly ruined and lost if
the said threatened wrongs are continued
or repeated.
That unless restrained and enioined by
order of this court such continued wrong
full acts and doings viii cause the plaintiffs
great and lrrepRrable damage. Wherefore,
the plaintiffs pray that the defendants and
each of them, their and each of their
agents, servants and employees, and any
and all others acting in aid or assistance OF
them, or either of them, said Wilson Irrj-
gaton company, be perpetually restrained
and enjoined from i'll any way or manner
interfering with the stream or flow of
water herelnbefore mentioned to and upon
the lands Of the plaintiffs. For all other
and further relief and Tor costs OF suit,
The decision of Judge Miner is in full as
follows:
The defendants, the Wilson Irrigation
Co., should pc enjoined and held to have
no authority TO assess plaintiffs who are
owners OF bottom lands as such for ex-
penses in keeping up the ditch from Robins
to the river.
Plaintiffs should be held bound TO keen
in repair the original ditch from Robins TO
the river. including head gates and wash
outs to the extent Of paying one-twelfth
the expenses of keeping said ditch as
Tidened in repair, and expenses of clean
ing tie same, and defendants shall be held
to pay eleYen-twelfths of such expense
Each 10 keep their proportion in repair and
protect the inlet from washouts and dam
age.
Plaintiffs should have the right to use
water through the old canal or ditch of the
size as originally contemplated. eight feet
wide and two feet deep, or so much thereof
as they may need 10 water their lands ard
take Tor that purpose water through their
ditch near Robins house, and four feet
wide and one foot deep as was orlginallv
constructed, averaging about six and three
fourths cubic feet flow per second. and az
testified to by Perkins and once fail as
testified to by him.
Defendant to take balance of water as
usual through their ditch and their lands
Is formerly for the use Of the company.
plaintiffs TO recover costs TO be taxed and
Perkins tees. Each party to be enjoined
from interfering with the right of the
other under this decree.
The case Is very important one and
ends long and tedious contest.
Other Court Cuttings.
In the police court yesterday four tramps
Il Id, !