The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1893-06-25
BANKER WHIINORE' SCASE.
Contention Over the Waters OF
Grassy Trail Creek.
The COURTS WATER BOX.
1t Didn't Work to Suit WhitmOre and
He Tore It Out.
he Is Now Charged With Contempt o
Court-Proceedings Before Bartch
and zane-The Burt Baby
Case Court Notes.

Yesterday was typical business day in
the Third district court and there were
over fifty members of the Salt Lake bar
present when "Doc'' Sprague's voice
proclaimed the court in session. The
legal lights tumbled over each other in
the usual free and easy manner until a
number of short orders had been disposed
of, when more substantial matters were
taken up.
The first matter of Importance called
up was the contempt proceedings against
George g. Whitmore, the Nephi banker.
Brown & Henderson, for the defendant,
suggested that it go before Judge Bartch
for apparent reasons. After some
argument for and against the disqualifi-
cation of judges in the supreme court, by
virtue of hearings in the trial court,
Judge Zane stated that he thought it best
20 allow the matter to be transferred to
Judge Bartch, and the attorneys retired
TO the other room. where the latter await
ed them.
Upon arrival there Judge Henderson
stated that Mr.. Brown was detained in
sthe other court, but that he would go
after him.
Zane-No, he isn't in court at all; he
has gone up to the club to get drink.
s'Well. I'll go and look for him, any
look, but as he started out he met his
partner at the door.
After some further delay, Judge Bartch
ordered the hearing to proceed.
HISTORY OF THE CASE.
The facts in brief are substan TALLY as
follows: Some time ago l.. A. Scott
Elliott brought suit against &c rye G.
Whitmore ct al, and in the course of
time the matter was referred to j. I'll.
Harris as referee to try and report findings
and decree The question involved was
the rights of the respective parties to the
waters of Grassy Trail creek. The referee
found that the defendants were entitled to
sixty seven-one hundred and hftieths of
a cubic foot of water per second, and the
plaintiff to the balance. This finding was
confirmed by Judge Zane, and
later W. P. Hardesty was appointed
by the court as commissioner to take
charge OF the matter and construct q
measuring box which would apportion
the waters of the creek, according to the
terms of the decree, Mr.. Hardesty did as
directed, and white-wInged peace rested
over the scene until June IL when, &C.
cording to affidavit filed by Mr.. Elliott,
which caused the DEFENDANTS arrest on
the charge of contempt, Mr.. Whitmore
tore out portions OF the measuring box
and since that time has diverted almost
II &c
much to the detriment of the plaintiff.
The matter was called up on June II, at
which time the defendant answered the
affidavit of the plaintiff by denying
that the Third district court had ever
procured jurisdiction of the cause
or that the plaintiff had been deprived of
any of his rights under the terms of the
alleged decree. 1t was further alleged
that the box put in by the commissioner
of the court was not such one as the de-
cree provided for, lnasmuch as it gave
plaintiff eleven cubic feet of water per
second instead of five cubic feet per sec
ond, as required by the decree; also that
the plaintiff was still getting the full
amount of water to which he was entitled.
The hearing was then continued until
yesterday.
THE CASE PROCEEDS.
When Judge Bartch announced that he
was ready to proceed, John NJ. Za.e made
q statement of the case, substantially as
above recited, and read the report of the
water commissioner, relative to the con-
struction of the measuring box and the
accuracy of the apportionment of the
water as between the interested parties
Mr.. Zane also stated that Whitmore had
again visited the measuring box since he
was arrested last week, and completely
demolished it.
HARDESTY MADE THE BOX.
w. P. Hardisty, the commissioner OF
the court, was the first witness called for
the plaintiff. His report, submitted to
the court subsequent to his construction
of the measuring box, was offered in evil
dence and objected to by the defense, but
was admitted, subject to the objection, in
order to save time. Similar action was
also taken as to the oral testimony inre-
lation to the commissioners actions.
Arthur Brown cross examined Mr..
Hardesty and began by asking him why
he constructed the measuring box over
200 feet down the defendants ditch, and
the witness replied that he did so to save
the expense of building new dam.
A model of the measuring box was also
in evidence, and Mr.. Brown asked Har-
desty when he first saw the model. 81
don't remember, - replied the witness.
''Didn't you first see it in Zane & Put
nam S office?''
81 don't remember"
'tDidn't you see it In Zane & Putnam Is
Office before you were appointed by the
court?''
Zane-He wasn't in our Office at all.
Brown-Well, If you were under oath
somebody might believe you.
Mr.. Brown then put his original Ques-
ton and Mr.. Hardesty stated that he had
seen the model in Zane g. Putnam's Office
after his appointment.
Then followed the usual run of ques-