The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1895-06-01
MOOSE CREEK WATER
0wnere Of PlacerS in That Gulch Sue
for Damages.
THEY ASK FOR BIG MONEY
Information Filed Against Spencer
for Forgery and Anderson for
Burglary-Change of Venue
Asked For.

Butte, May 31.-The Butte City Water
company was to-day made defendant
in an action brought in the district
court that is of the utmost Importance.
not only to the company. but to the
city also, as the suit attacks the COM
pany's right to one of its principal
water supplies. The action was insti.
tuted by Charles s. Warren. John
Branagan, Fred w. Caplice. Charles +.
Booth and Lee Mantle, through their
attorneys, Robinson * Stapleton,
Thompson Campbell and d. Robertson
Barlow. and is the outgrowth of the
arrest of Chris Redding, at the instance
of the Water company a few days ago
on the charge of alleged interference
with the Water company's bitches on
Moose creek. The company did not at
tempt to prosecute him and he was dis
charged. The plaintiffs in the suit COM
menced to-day are the owners of
placer claim of SO acres on Moose creek,
which was originally owned by John
Treanor and for which they have had a
patent for 81 years. The placer has
been for years very productive and II is
stated that the present owners have
taken out about $50, 900, and have been
in indisputed possession of the water of
Moose creek until two years ago, when
the Water company, having purchased
claim on the creek above the plain
tiffs' claim, dug a ditch and diverted
all the water to the company's reser-
voir. The owners of the placer had
five men at work at the time, but for
lack of water operations were neces-
sarily suspended. A few weeks ago IL
was determined to start work again,
and Redding was sent out to turn the
water onto the placer again and his
arrest followed. The placer owners
claim that the Water company has no
right to get in above them and divert
the water from its natural course and
the suit instituted to-day is for the
purpose Of enjoining the company and
for damages.
The complaint in the case re-
cites That the plaintiffs in in
terest now own and that their
owned and have been in possession OF
the placer ground in question since
1860, and that every part Of il is placer
| mining ground containing placer gold
in large and paying quantities. The
gold can only be mined by the use of
water to separate and carry away the
dirt and gravel and to concentrate and
free the gold therefrom. For this pur-
pose. the plaintiffs predecessors in in
terest in 1865 appropriated all the wat
er OF Moose creek and all the tributar-
les thereof and diverted it from the
stream and carried it to and upon the
placer claim ever since 1865. and from
year to year uninterruptedly during the
mining season, and until the time of
the wrongs complained of, and used
the water in mining the placer On
August 26. 1898. the defendant wrong
fully and without right. by means of a
| ditch above the plaintiffs claims, turn
| ed and diverted all the waters of the
creek and its tributaries from the ma
| tural channel and conveyed the water
| over and beyond the Moose creek
divide to a point where il did not and
could not again reach Moose creek or
plaintiffs placer. and thereby willfully
| deprived the plaintiffs of the use of the
water or any of il, and there is not suf-
| ficient water left in the creek to run
their placer. By reason of the wrong
full acts complained of the plaintiffs
have been damaged in the sum of So
| 900, and will continue to be damaged
in the sum of $50 a day for each day
| that the defendant so depriVes them
of the water The complaint further
alleges that the defendant company
threatens to continue taking the wat
er and deprive the plaintiffs of it's use
and thereby render valueless for any
purpose the placer claim. Moose creek
flows a distance of about 20 miles from
east to west between well-defned
banks into the Big Hole river, and is
what is known as a mining gulch or
creek, and placer mining claims are To-
Gated, and have been for many years
past, from its source to it's mouth. The
water i'm the creek is sufficient for
placer mining purposes during the whole
year continuously when not diverted
by the defendants. The plaintiffs have
no plain, speedy or adequate remedy
at law as the defendants will continue
diverting the water unless restrained
by the court. wherefore the plaintiffs
ask judgment for $1,000 damages and
$50 a day for the time the water is d.
verted. and that they be decreed to
be the owners of the water and en-
titled to its use for placer mining and
that the defendants be perpetually en-
Joined and restrained. at the final hear
ing of the case, from in any way in
terfering with or divertipS the water
from she plaintiffs placer ground, and
that in the meantime a temporary in
junction be granted by the court re-
straining the defendant, it's agents,
employees or representatives from d.
verting any of the water from said
Moose creek during the pending of
the action.
Judge Mediation issued a temporary
restraining order, which was served
on the water companys superintend-
ent. An order TO show cause was also
issued and set for hearing June 10.
The action is brought as test case
and will affect a large number of
placer mine owners on Moose creek,
who. il is understood, are backing the
plaintiffs in this suit.