The Wadsworth dispatch. [volume] (Wadsworth, Nev.) 1892-1899, 1893-10-18
OF INTEREST TO IRRIGAT0Rs.
Judge 0heney's Decision in the Case Of
Jones VS.. Russell.

JOKES VS.. Russel'
In the case of Jones vs.. Russell ct ae.,
tried in the District Court recently,
which was an action for damages by a
lower against an upper landowner for
overlooking, or waste, water used in irri-
eating, the court instructed the jury to
to the effect that if the water seeped or
percolated from other lands through that
OF the defendants upon that of the plain
till and without any act OF the defendants
they were not liable that ii water flowed
from the lands OF others over and upon
the lands OF plaintiff, but without defen-
dants' consent, and unaffected by any
act or neglect on defendants part, they
were not liable; that il the defendants
caught up, used or appropriated to their
own use or benefit water which flowed
upon their lands from that of others
they are liable for any damages which it
caused to defendant ii they allowed or
permitted it to flow or escape from their
bitches, lands or fumes and run upon
the lands of plaintiff; that where water
escapes from the lands of several parties
without any joint operation and by rea-
son of separate neglect of each, each
owner is only liable for such damages as
results from his own neglect, and the
party suing has the burden Of showing
the extent of such damage that a party
is only liable for the natural, direct and
proximate consequences OF his own acts F;
that a land owner has no right to make
his W estate more valuable by reason
of any act which renders the estate OF an
adjoining landowner less valuable; and
that in actions of this character the
damages are confined to what is n fair
compensation for the loss or injury actu-
ally sustained, and nothing is allowed as
smart money" or punitive damages.
"In determining the question Of care
lessness or negligence OH the part OF the
defendants in divertlng and using water
on their lands, the jury are instructed
that whilst the defendants had the I'M
doubted right to make a reasonable use
OF water upon their lands to irrigate the
same, that 1t was their duty to so use,
manage and control the water diverted
by them, or used for irrigation purposes,
as not to injure the land of plaintiff or
the crops OF grass growing thereon and
if you believe from the evidence that
defendants diverted water from the river
and used the same to irrigate their lands,
and the water so diverted or used or any
portion thereof flowed into or upon the
land Of plaintiff and injured the same,
or the crops of grass growing thereon,
then your verdict should be for the
plaintiff for such damages, if any, as you
find from the evidence plaintiffs lands
and crops of grass growing thereon, or
either, suffered or sustained by reason of
such diversion or irrigation"
The above instruction is a very clear
and concise statement of the law upon
this subject. 1t will be seen that the
law imposes upon every landowner
divertlng and using water upon his land
to take care of the waste or surplus
water, and see to it that other land
owners are not injured or their lands
made less valuable by the use of water
by others for ~irrigating purposes. In
brief, no landowner can make his land
more valuable by irrigation if by SO do
ing he in any way makes his neighbours
land less yaluable.-Gazette'