The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1894-01-30
BY TIE SUPREME COURT.
Two Deolsions in Appeals Prom Deer
Llds. aud GillaIin Countie.
speclA nlsnAtcn 10 Ila silnlarl.

SPeusi blslAtch 70 tJo StlulAEi.
HELENA, Jan. 2a.-Tho supreme court
to-day handed down two opinions. The
most important Is that In the case os
James b, Hagsin, plaintiff and rvsponG-
ent, ys. Redmond Sale and Mary Sale.
defendants and appellants. IL 10 an APP
peal from Deer Lodge county. The opInion
is by Chief Justice Pemberton AID Is as
follows;
This case Involves dispute as to the priority
Of right 10 tho Use Of water upN.gg through
Glover canyon. Deer Lodge county. Tbs pliua-
TIA sought TO nIoln the defendants from inter
lerlng with his alleged prior rgh. to the use OF
said water. The jury returned spscia findings
IN favor OF The defend, MS, which the ccREs
adopted and rtud,rsd iudlmrnt accordingly, 10
the effect that ihr defendant, are cntiltd TO oil
the wafer IN qUrBllOn prior 60 the claims of the
plaintn. lhe paiu;,n moved ior q ncw trial,
which Was granted fTon lha, The GrlcnlluIs
appealed, The plaintiff claims lite To The water
by virtue II the appropriation thereof BY Alex.
Glnyur In ls'2. aud his use continuously until
tS'd, when lac sold 70 together Win a parcc! Oi
land 20 tHo plalntiI and t!ic ,IrJnrr use ~ The
water BY the paBtll. Tan defendants coucede
thar ArN, Glover had valid appropriation OF
vaioF lut conveyed Il 10 pla,nIin. But Iney
contend that hr has abandoned and HrglOr,ri
aied and used !, continuously :Or NOSE thIn
five years, adversely 10 The c.a.ln OF tGe palm
ln.
A review Of thu record d!Sc'nscs .hr f.ct taAt
the defendants claim tn a prior rlh, 10 the u.e
OF Ih' water depends upon the ahc ~ tafs q;
ils Abandonment by tho plaint.u aHl u, dsc ~
the dli, ndInts dar,u- ave wears, and further
dsclos's hat the Use made ui the water aitrr
The purchase by IN, paiBgj0. upon lis laEGs.
WAS In ths operation .! maa.ns br!cS. ol.rrird
on by Que aiappeA Cgdcr q coz Iact. II there
was a use by q. on bc.iali oi Tie ulH!Lil1, Then
the claim 0f adverse rusSrs .on by the defend
suts fls. Tho appellant. s.El.s tlaJ the ease,
as pgss n.ed, on tGc question: whether th'
| court vas Justified 0, anuscG Iss discretion Ia
granting new trial, deIeuds uItDn q TeNiCw end
construction OF the testimony 0i ,Smph2d, whn
va, oagaged In manufacturing brick upon the
land Of the plaintiff aai by the usc u wascr
! thereon rndeg his contract.
Tie very situation under witch va must re.
view this case. 4 u is 10 b. returned for another
| lIlal, precudes discussion .s Va tho force oi the
| evidence upon yitll points. We nave carefully
considered the evidence and assignments set
ior,h In the record, and canno. md thei efrum
| iA5I the evidence upon the IN orIanl POINTS M
tha case is so Gear ~ 10 warrant Ne IN nIuNenlng
the order 0l the triiI court gruuilug new trial.
In order 10 Justify Ms In rcyeT,ing this order, II
mu,i appear that there WAS an abso OF Judicial
discretion on the part Of the trial coart Ia grant
iDg the motion 1his We do not ind. Tins
order appealed from viii therefore be affirmed,
The other opinion was IN the case Of
Anne Ryan OF al, appellants, va. Daniel
Maxy ct al. respondents; appeal from
Galiatin county. The opinion is by jus
ticc Harwool. Fho lower court is aus
tanned.