The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1896-12-17

The trial of the suit of the Crescent
Mining company against the Silver
King Mining company, involving GER
tain water rights, was commenced
yesterday before Judge Hiles without
jury Messrs. Marshall and Royle.
Moyle. Zane and Costigan represented
the plaintiff and Messrs. Dickson, Ellis
and Ellis the defendant.
1t was set forth in the complaint
that the plaintiff owned large num-
Der of mining claims in Thayne's can
yon, near Park City. to-wit: The Act
ma, the Hecla, the Rebellion, the James
A. Garfield, the Senate, the Climax,
the Walker and the Walker Extension,
and that the plaintiff was engaged i'll
operating the same and extracting ores
therefrom. which ores were treated at
the Crescent concentration, which treat
ment necessitated the use of a large
quantity of water For the purpose of
obtaining such needed supply of water
the plaintiff, on Aug. IL, 1886, and prior
thereto, did, from the unappointed and
unused waters of Thaynes or Shadow
Lake, situated near the head of
| Thanye's canyon, appropriate large
quantity of water-ln fact, all of the
lake-for all seasons of the year, to-
wit: all the water of said lake which
collected and gathered therein, the
same being necessary for the purpose
of use aforesaid, and by means of a
/ long and costly pipe line, conducted
said water to said mine. The main
source of supply of the lake was
stream of water issuing from the jean
nette or Thayne tunnel, and without it
the lake would be unavailable for d
water supply for the plaintiff.
1t is then alleged that on July A.
1895, the defendant with force and viO-
lence dug a trench over and across the
Hecla, James A. Garfield. Climax, Sem
ate. Walker, Walker Extension and
Pinto mining claims TO the outlet of
the lake and laid a pipe line and I'M
lawfully diverted the waters of the
lake, depriving plaintiffs of its rights
and ownership therein, to its damage
in the sum of $500.
LAID ANOTHER PIPE LINE.
For a second cause of action it is
alleged that defendants entered upon
the Hecla, Aetna and Rebellion claims,
dug trench and laid pipe line to a
point above the mouth of the Aetna
tunnel, and surreptitiously connected
their pipe line with the pipe line of
the plaintiff and used plaintiffs water,
tC Its damage in the sum of $4,000.
For third cause of action the plain
tiff recites the fact of the laying of
the pipe lines and trespass by the de-
PENDANT, and alleges that the trespasses
and pipe line il continued will ripen
into an easement and become a cloud
on plaintiffs title to its real estate.
and thus cause the plaintiff great dam
age, and that by reason of the tres
pass plaintiff has suffered $1,000 dam
ages.
The plaintiff prayed for an injunc-
ton restraining the defendants from
taking water from the lake or any of
the visible water supplies or tributaries
thereto, and from trespassing on plain
tiff's property, and for judgment for
$4,000.
DEFENDANT DENIES.
The defendant, answering, entered
denial of all the material allegations
of the complaint, and alleged that the
water proceeding from the Jeanette
tunnel had its source in the Thayne
mining claim, which is owned by the
defendant. The defendant also al
leges that it, by grant from William
NJ. Ferry. is the owner of all of the
waters of Thaynes lake and the tribu-
taries thereto, and that plaintiff has
no right to the same and was never
in possession of said water. except a
small portion, which it used by permis-
sion OF the defendant company; and it
is alleged that James McGregor, super
intendent of the plaintiff company, ap-
piled for and Obtained the consent of
the defendant to lay its pipe line for
the purpose of diverting such portion of
the water as the defendant allowed it
to take. 1t is also alleged that the
defendant obtained the permission of
the plaintiff to lay their pipe line over
plaintiff land. and that if such per-
mission had not been given. defendant
would have brought condemnation pro
ceedings for a right-of-
When the suits were filed over a year
ago, temporary injunctions were is
sued against the defendants. but on
appeal TO the supreme court these were
set aside on the defendant giving an
indemnity bond.
The hearing of the case was proceed
ing when court adjourned until this
morning.