Arizona republican., 1896-12-23
TONS OF TESTIMONY TAKEN.
In the Celebrated Salt River
 Canal Case.
Arguments Were Concluded YeSter- day in the District Court-Jud9e Baker Will Give His Decision In About Two Months.

The case known as A. L. Henshaw ct al vs. the Salt River Valley Canal company was argued yesterday before Judge A. c. Baker in the district court.
 The plaintiffs are the minority share holders in the Salt River Valley Canal company. They claimed in the ac- tion at bar the right to their respective appropriations of water for the land which they respectively possess free from the control of the corporation except as to the mere transmission of the water by the canal of the company to the ditches and lands of the plain tiffs.
 The defendant has contended for the right to segregate the water and the use and the right to water from the ownership or possession of lands cul- tivated under the canal; and asserts the right, under it's charter, to sell the water at price per inch to each con- sumer, and the charter permits the holder of water rights to charge price for the privilege of renting the water right; and in addition to this requires a separate compensation to the com pany for the value or price per inch of water which the corporation sells to the consumer
 The minority shareholders, the plaintiffs, hold their shares of capital stock of the corporation and have never consented to receive water rights, water right certificates or deeds for water rights, the plaintiffs claim ing that the system planned by the ma jority to sever the water from the land is a violation of the charter of the cor poration.
 This system, the plaintiffs state, was begun in 1888. It is also claimed that the action of the directors has been taken without the consent or sanction of or notice to the sharehold- CTS. The foregoing is a statement of the case as alleged by the plaintiff, and the following is the defendants statement of it's grounds for conten- tion:
 'The defendant, the Salt River Val ley Canal company, in substance an- swers and claims that it has no cor porate control over the owners of water rights in it's canal. l.lat it is a pri- vate corporation organized for the purpose of carrying so much of the waters of the Salt river through the channel of it's canal to it's certain 1 stockholders as has not been appro- priated by other canals prior in right. 1 That all of it's shares of stock and water rights have long since been sold | to divers individuals who are the sole owners of the same and entitled to the control and management not only of the business incidental to the carry 1 ing of water, but to the control and direction of the corporate policy as- stunned toward the other canals of the Salt River valley. That is unques- toned law that a majority of the stockholders of any corporation are legally entitled to dictate the election of directors, and the general business attitude to be assumed by the com pany itself, so long as the policy 1 adopted does not impair, misuse or waste the corporate property. That ever been practiced the defendant corporation emphatically denies, and it must be confessed the proof in the case fails to reveal anything to the contrary The whole matter in contro- versy is apparently the outcome of one or two extraordinarily dry seasons
 which occurred a year or two ago
 when for two or three months there
 was not sufficient water in the river to furnish all the canals of the valley with the usual plentiful supply
 Colonel William Herring is the at
 torney for the plaintiffs and Aims worth and Bennett for the defendants
 The testimony was taken before g
 master in chancery, Hon. Joseph Campbell. It is voluminous and occu
 pied about two months in taking. The
 argument was closed yesterday, and il
 is likely that it will be two months
 more before a decision will be ren