Arizona republican., 1893-06-15
IN COURT. Application for an In- junction Denied In the Mohawk Canal
 Co. Case Against the Farmers lrrigating
 Canal Company. An interesting Point Raised In a Demurrer to the Plaintiffs
 Application.

In the matter Of the Mohawk Canal and Improvement company vs The Farmers Irrigating and Canal company. the plaintiffs application for a temporary restraining order WAS yester- day denied by Judge Baker. The ap- plication was made and argued last Monday, Pierce Evans appearing for the applicant and Judge Van Derwerker, of Yuma, and Walter Bennett, of Millay X Bennett, for the defendant. The case is one of peculiar interest and unlike any other ever brought in the courts of this territory.
 Both parties diver: water from the Gila river, the head of the defen dants canal being situated about miles forty above that of the plaintiff's. The lat. ter had appropriated 10000 inches of water designed to irrigato 30,00O acres of land. At all seasons of the year ex- cept during June, July and August, there is sufficient water for both, ac- cordingly the plaintiff applied on the ground of claim of prior location for restraining order against the defendant to be in force during those months.
 The complaint was demuTred to on the general ground that it failed to set forth sufficient cause of action.
 First, it failed to allege who the par ties were to whose lands the water was to be applied together with the dates of entry oi such lands.
 Second, that it failed to show that if the water should pass the head of the defendants canal that it would reach that of the plaintiff.
 Judge Vanderwerker also raised the point that the plaintiffs had no lasds upon which to apply the water, that being foreign corporation formed un- der the laws of California, the Mohawk Canal and Improvement company was not entitled under the statutes to the possession of more than 320 acres of land for the purpose set forth in the complaint.
 The plaintiff, therefore. could not claim prior appropriation or in fact an appropriation at all, as an appropria- | ton consisted not merely of a diversion of water hut also its application to beneficial uses. As the plaintiff was not legally in possession of the lands it | lacked the power to perform the second act necessary to constitute an appro. priation.
 The statute upon which this conten- ton was based, had been generally overlooked.
 | The views of Messrs. Nanderwerker and Bennett were sustained.
 The day closed with the hearing of another canal case, that of the Estrella Fruit and Land Co.,, vs., K. c. Powers, former director of that company, but now the appropriator of water to a | rival enterprise.
 Other cases were passed upon as fol- | lows:
 Territory vs. Voitares, set for trial June l6.
 Territory vs. Francisco Mates, set i or June l9.
 Ellis & Ellis vs. Cox, dismissed for want of prosecution.
 Ellis vs. Mcdonald ct al; motion to strike out denied cases set for trial 1 June 20.
 Williscraft vs. Mcdonald set for June l9.
 McAlIister vs Orosco; set for June l9. l BaCkus vs. PeroZzo ct al ; set for June 2l.
 Glencross & Brotherton vs. Evans ct al set for June 2l.
 Edmundson vs. Gro Mining company. Defendant g 'anted leave to file amend. ment ans yer.
 Blinn Lumber Co.,, vs. R. E. Earring. ton trial by court judgment for plain, tiff.
 Kalfus vs. Glascott answer filed.