Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1893-12-15
COMPROMISE POINT.
Tho Litigation Against Canal Com.
pauIes 10 Salt Lake County.
pnilr HISTORY or rnE DISPUTE
The Case Far From Being determined
YeL-Ynriou. interc,ts Involved iuE
the Contest.

Last evening, al Provo, the Jury 10
,be suit OF George T.. P,ny against tue
osual companies in Salt Lake county
which take water out Of The Jordan
river rendered verdict awarding
Nir. Peay s. go Tor damages alleged to
s,yr been done to bic property ou the
shore Of Utah Lake through tine
waters going above what Is known as
"compromiso point"
FORA number OF years piiot to 1883
considerable diiioiuucoeHis.vI between
,omo of the people Of Utah county and
the salt Llke county canals. The
landowners along Utah Lake claimed
tbnt hey were being damaged through
the canal companies putting in .
dam In the Jordan river ~ get
water out Tor irrigation. The canal
companies denied that they were the
cause OF damage, nni aguitCi that the
f.Brle look az luui close Go tHu lake
which was Il IUdcd by natural high
water; they alsO claimed that they bad
water up ~ a certain ievu..
The dispute led, IN 1858, 90 Tho uIiuE
Of nsuit bya pr.AL tumUur of luu
county people. isuui,r 10 check costly
litigation the late PfcsiIent john lay.
6rarrangtd tor board 0f arbitration
on which were placed a number OF tnt
moot capable suI experienced men in
Utah on the questions involved. Iuit
hoard u ADMIRATION sst iu 1881, and
aitrra pa lent hearing VI all puairs Of
The controversy rendered decision.
Tbt4 gave 60 the Utah county people
ssOlO IN cash, besides other c4mpuu.
,,tion. La consideration Df This pay.
mont, the canal companies were
granted permission 10 raise the waters
6fthe fivprt0 o. level OF three leo tutuv
and hall Inches above luw walter
frnfk--ihu alter point being mutually
agreed upon. Within that SCOPE the
canal cumpnnlCH were o. lu held nee
from any liability Tor damage.
This decision Of tho board Of nrbi'
tfati1n was c1naum mated aH nm agree.
meut by the canal companies AuI the
LANDOWNERS along the lake shore nillN.
lux their signatures Thereto. one VI
the prov nous OF the agreement wac
that there should be "a commission APP
pointed 10 regulate the operation o. tue
Jam In the JorIan.
AmuHg those who signed the agree
mrnt was Mr. pcay, VINO received by
the decision about slUID duma.vs. 10
bis prtatnt suit be claims that tue
waters OF the LAKE have been raised
three nuu n hall Inches above clmpfU'
mise point by the canal C0mpHuica
putting q hJnri iu tho dam, uuu ihat
therefore hc II entitled 10 damages.
The canal companies deny tuut the
water reached CIuulomIsu point.
They had Cty surveyor DIfnwus
make q survey, which shows lhat "
Nit. Pcay'a 100 og 100 acres oi lhuii
n the laHrW WIS up 90 compton,. Iui4i
all but ABOUT iduHcf,s would have lugru
submerged, ASA ~ tuis vas not i1nr,
Therefore toe water could NOT have
passed beyond the limit. They iur,hcr
assert thai thcir dam was not rufp1n'
sib'u iUr the water being On high us 10
was, as they say tue boards ln thrir
Jam were never tut in up 10 tue level
where they were authorized 90 80.
Ia the trial, thv jury tuud ior Mr.
Pcny Tor s. 100. Out OF tNr 1000 hu
asked. The canal cempnuirb viii
move Tor a new trial on the ground
that the verdict is contrary 90 the evil
dcucc. AZ this should DO uvorslicl uu
appeal will be- taken, IN which event
tlu case will bvsgt,ltd by tue higher
courts.
In the meantime there are quite a
number OF otuor land owners who pfo'
pose 70 bring suit In case Mo. Peay
Wins.