The herald., 1894-12-03

sources. springs and underground flow
in all the lands described in the COM
plant, including the river bottom, is
fully and completely protected by the
stipulation in this suit. Ii certainly
could not have got any more had you
tried the case and received all the city
claimed or could have claimed in this
matter. and l am of the opinio n that
this stipulation which the city entered
into puts II in position to hereafter as
sert whatever rights il may have to the
waters Of the river or to It's sources, in
case any effort 10 made by Developments
upon this land to lessen the flow OF the
river. Very respectfully.
STEPHEN M. WHITE.
have examined the papers in the
above case and concur In the opinion OF
Senator White. ROBERT n. BuLLA.
l also concur in the opinion OF Sena-
tor White above expressed.
STEPHEN G. HUBBELL.
/ am familiar with the questions in
volved In the above mentioned suit
through the preparation of another suit
OF q similar character, and in my
opinion Mir. Mcfarland obtained greater
ooucsssions for the advantage OF the
city than the law or the supreme court
WOUt0 ONcI uWnI0 W tuo Clby upOA u
trial. r. H. F. VARIEL.
Los ANGELES, Nov. 80, 1894.
DEAR Sin AT your request we have
BY and between the attorneys for plain
tiff and defendant, respectively, in the
action OF w. T. Spillman vs. City OF
Los Angeles. as published in the Ex-
press of the 9Th inst, and would cay
that, in our opinion, said stipulation
recognizes. admits and protects the
ownership OF said city OF Los Angeles.
in all the waters OF ths Los Angeles
river; and slso in all waters forming
part OF Its sources, feeders, springs. and
all supterrahean waters flowing into the
same and tributaries thereof. Yours
truly. WELLBoRN & Huron.
Los ANGELES. Cal, Nov. 80, 1894.
DEAR SIR:-I have examined copy
Of the stipulation entered into In the
case OF w. 7. Spil!man vs. The City Of
Los Angeles. am Of the opinion tina.
the rights of the city are completely
protected by subdivision Third"
ton.
Clauses "Third" and Fourth" recog.
nizs the city's ownership OF all the
waters OF the Los Angeles river, and OF
all waters forming parts Of its 'Bources,
underground flow, feeders, springs and
all subterrsnean waters flowing into the
same and tributary thereto" while
clause Fifth" limits the right OF Mr..
Spillmsn ITO develop and use only so
much Of said waters as do not constitute
a part of the sonrces, feeders. springs,
underground flow and eubterraneap
waters Of the Los Angeles river. and as
are not tributary thereto"
cannot conceive OF any interest
which Los Angeles city can have in the
waters referred to in the stipulation. ex-
cspt the interest which is affirmatively
given to the city by clauses third and
fourth, and from which Mr.. Spillman ia
afirmativsly excluded BY the fifth
clause.
Very respectfully yours,
W. P. GARDINER.
Los ANGELES, CAL, Nov. 80, 'y4.
DEAR SIR:-At your request No have
examined the stipulation entered into
by you in behalf of the city in the suit
Of W. T. Spillman, plaintiff, against the
city OF Los Angeles, defendant.
In our opinion you obtained for the
city in that stipulation q better settle
ment of the matter. and an adjudication
Of right in and for the city, more advan-
tageous TO the city than you could pcs.
sibly have obtained in . trial of the
case.
By your discretion and scumen, the
interests Of the public were not only
amply protected, but protected ut q
great saving OF cost to the city.
Our attention being called particularly
to the question OF extent and location of
the land described, I'VE wish to say that
it 10 wholly immaterial, for wherever the
land described in the complaint may be
situated, or whatever the amount there.
Of. the stipulation holds good ss between
the parties to the action. Very respect
fully yours, LAMME & WILDE.