Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1895-06-11
TIE SUPREME COURT.
Usual Number Of Cases Argued ant
Submitted.
A QUESTION OF WATER RIGHT
Ownership Of the Ian Newman Ranch
In bi'puie-Suit Tor Damages
Against the Southern Pacific.

The usual number Of cases we're
argued ami submitted 10 the Slprems
Court today.
QUESTION Oh WATER RIGHT.
The ilrst case argued WAS that Of NJ.
g. sullivan Of al, PLAINTIFF and spprl.
lsn'', Va the Nufthern Spy Mining
company, doiendsn,s an respondents.
The case "a an appeal ifom tue Judg.
"lcnt aui order denying mlll0n ilra
new trial Ia the Third district court
before Judge Baftch.
The plNinliiis set forth that they
Hefo owners VI The Pckin mining
claim IN Tiniio mining dis,glct, Juan
county. When located the ground
was vacsn; and uuucsupiUi public
land. There were certain wells upon
%, ton 10 fifteen lest deep, aud thcy
hal beon there Tor some Yeas, aud
IA 10 been used for watering stock, tho
water being Ub.sinnd by using a
eiudiass. They iuTthUr COntcud that
thg duionianIu iIusplssed upon thoir
claim nu4, u.silus iuIurlng the free
mold, took away large quantities Of
waller.
Tue do'eniant denied tic allegations
Of tue com plaint auI alleged that ilr
many yoaIs utiCt 90 the time Of the I'll.
legged ifesuaa', wells mad been dug in
Tue ground, lvtreI AMI DmbrAcsI In
tBa Pchiu clsim; thU water hat b1eI
procured thuruifum, by tho pgeitcrs-
suiE Ia interest " the defendant; that
ihs gT0uni wa anu l. solely valuable
un Accuuus U. aud by reason Of tue
Welil. And Wa, AZ the date Of the dig.
slus o. the wells, public land Of the
OuiIed states, without minerals there.
oa Or any indication VI mineral; that
lhu wells and water ihetefrlm were
used and oulJyri hy the owners VI tns
Northern Spy milne, which was sol 4 to
thu Defendant, anl that with the mia.
ing claim tuIs Transferred, was iTan,-
ietrci ali the right OF the owners TO the
ieiendani, Of tue wells, aud that 10
has from that tims taken water there
from. Onu OF the main points In.
VOWED Il as 90 whether the wells can
DO classed as natural water courses.
LAND OWNERSHIP DISPUTE.
The next case argued anu submitted
was that Of a. l.. Barnes, plaintiff and
respondent. ". NJ. ID. Cox, doion.
dsut and appellant. Inc cass 3. mp.
realod from tho decision OF Judge
It's Get forth that on the 10 OF March,
1899, plaintiff whs In possession u laud
/ Ia Box Elder county, designated ~ al
| island aud known rs the "Dan New.
msn ranch;" that Ia May, 1891, defend.
ant took POSSESSION OF fRiJ premises
rs the agent and tenant OF plaintiff,
| under contract heretofore entered
Into between the parties, Whereby de-
irntAnt was 10 perform certain work
and labor on pnid premises, and was TO
DO allowed 10 occupy the came while
In performance Of the contract, or for
such length Of time as plaintiff might
permit him % 90 DO; that In March,
| 1891, plaintIn made demand Ia writ
lis II said defendant to deliver up
/ AMI surrender TO him the possession OF
said pfemiIUa. rhe plAinun further
alleges that Defendant roiuied ana
neglected for the space Of more than
i've days after the making OF such
demand, TO quit possession Of said
! premises. Wherefore plaintiff demands
| Judgment against defendant for tho
re'tiiutlon Of said premises aud $500
| damages.
In his answer defendant denied that
| plaiuiii was on tue date mentioned, or
~ any Tins had b0pn, In the quiet aud
I
that Defendant vt any time went intO
possession thereof "a agent or tenant Of
! plaintiff. Defendant further AYERS that
J tho land WAS on February IL, 1891, uu-
surveyed; that ON that day defendant
| nled on the land, AMI gave tho nscts.
ssry notice Of his Intention 10 claim II;
| that the lands have since boon suT-
yeped 10y authority OF the government,
| the maps and Held notes OF such sur
| yoy havs been died AMI approved by
| the local land office, and are pt ndlng
! dual apDTovemBnt before the general
land office at Washington.
The case was tried In the Fourth dis
trcl court al Logan before Judge IL.
W. Smith, ami Judgment entered for
! tho possession Of the premises Rnd 'Or
s92,OS damages anu sl27,l0 costs. Tho
| appeal was taken on tns ground that
the compliant does not state facts suf-
ficlont Tor u cause OF actlon, and the
judgment IL unauthorized.
FOR PERSONAL INJURIES.
The case OF James Chapman, plain.
| tll auu respondent, We the Southern
| Pacific company, defendant and
! appellant was then taken up. This
| WRa n suit for damagea against the de-
| ibniant company brought In the
Fourth district for personal injuries
received while In the employ OF said
company. This amount Of dam ages
asked WINS $4,000, but when the case
was tried Judgment was rendered for
| $500 aud costs Of suit, An appeal
was taken on the ground that the svi.
oenco failed to justliy the verdict;
that the verdict Is agalnst law; that
! the damages are excessive, anu that
errors occurred at the tIial aud
excepted to by defendant. The case
! was argued anu submitted. IL appears
that Chapman was employed IN and
about a sGwnill owned by tue defend.
ant company ia Box Elder county,
ami while performing his duty WAS
| thrown on to the saw and his hand
| badly cut, by reason OF tho platform on
which he stood giving way.
orISloN.
An opinion was handed down today
| denying the writ OF mandate which
William Ii pttlen applied Tor against
| Judge IA. w. Smith,
APPLIED FOR ADMISSION.
Tho following gentlemen applied for
admission TO the bar VI the supreme
Court tOda,i 4. +. Ford, c. S. Hills