The herald., 1896-12-10
CITY JUsTIcEsHIP CONTEST
Some Sensatiosal Allegations in the
Willard Divorce Suit
N. J. Spreckens Wants $500 for Beiss Run
Over
The Bid for Building the Nursery An
mex at the County Hospital Being
Considered-J. F. Bedwell, the
Forger, Gets Seven Years.

fOr some Time past Judge Mckinney
has been busily occupied in chambers,
in wrestling with the intricacies Of the
Lytle creek case. and within the next
day or two an opinion will be handed
down.
The interests involved which are of
most complex kind. are such that the
case is one of the most important of all
the suits brought to define the water
rights Of contending parties. AS pre-
liminary to the opinion yet to be rem
dered Judge Mckinley yesterday hand
ed down memorandum of ownerships
in which is embodied the general result
Of the prolonged legal investigation.
With a general idea of the contention
raised the finding of the court will be
readily ineligible.
The suit was brought by the Lytle
Creek Water and Improv ement compa-
ny against the Grapeland irrigation dis
trict, and large number of other de-
PENDANTS. The plaintiff acquired title
to the lands and water rights involved
from the Semi-tropic Land and Water
company, that Incorporated in 1887.
That organization held title of part of
the holdings of the rancho Muscupiabe
under Mexican grant, and confirmed
by the United States by patent issued in
June, 1872. The remainder of the lands
were held under United States patents
The Semi -tropic company acquired the
lands, bitches and flumes-the latter to
divert the waters of Lytle creek which
runs miles through the rancho-as RI
parian and appurtenant to the lands.
These latter were divided into farm lots
and the town sites of Rialto. Blooming
ton, Fontana and Sansevain were laid
out. The company expended 1929, 900 in
making improvements, and the entire
district is under cultivation in orange
and deciduous trees, vineyards, alfalfa
and other crops, altogether covering
about 5000 acres. All these lands were
sold to the present occupants who i'm
proved their properties on the under
standing that the water necessary for
their development would be supplied
In all these Improvements are estimated
at $500, ,00c
The Grapeland irrigation district was
formed under the provisions of the act
of the legislature passed for such pur-
pose, and the other defendants cdaimed
direct or indirect interest in the waters
of Lytle creek. In pursuance of these
underlined rights-real or supposed
there was laid 1000 feet of six-inch pipe
from point known as the falls, on the
south fork of the creek, to the main
wash or bed of the said south fork; and
by their actions threatened to lay more
pipe to convey the water from the falls
to the main canyon, instead of permit
ting it to flow down it's accustomed
channel, with the intent of claiming the
right to divert the same from the stream
at or near the mouth of the canyon.
A tunnel was also in course of con-
struction for the purpose of taking all
the underfiow of the creek. and drain the
waters before they had the chance to
reach the main stream.
The following memorandum Of the
court shows the priority interest as de-
fined by Judge Mckinley:
First-Plaintiff is the owner of Lord
right, amounting to thirty-two inches.
taken at intake of cement ditch; also
of twenty inches under riparian right
taken at same point.
Second-Defendant Campbell is the
owner of $50 inches at Lord gate, equal
to 200 inches at intake.
Third-Lytle Creek Water company is
the owner of 450 inches taken at intake.
Fourth-Plaintiff is entitled to take
600 inches under riparian right at intake.
Fifth--Plaintiff is entitled to take bal
| ance of water up to 1000 inches at intake,
by appropriation.
Sixth Grapeland Irrigation District
| has no right to maintain its tunnel or
| divert water by it, except as subject to
above rights.
(! Seventh-Miller is not the owner OF
any water except Sulphur spring, or OF
any riparian right, except subject t1
| above rights.
Eighth-Hughes is not the owner OF
any riparian right or of any water ex-
| cept as subject to above rights.
| Ninth-Vosburgh is the owner of per-
| colating water on hillside at house and
| in garden, but not of any other water
or riparian right except as subject tc
| above rights.