The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1896-07-23
.Keher Hanneninms

HEBER,July 21.-The first business
that came before Judge McCarty at
yesterday afternoons session of court
was the hearing of demurrer to the
complaint interposed by the defense in
the case of the Midway Irrigation Co.
VS.. James B. Hamilton, suit to compel
a water owner not a member of the
plaintiff company, but using water. out
Of Snake creek, a tributary of Provo
river, through the bitches of the COM
pany, to pay expenses OF company pro
rata with members. Defendant alleges
that he has paid in labor all of his just
share of the cost of keeping in repair
as much of the bitches of the company
as he uses and denies his liability to
pay for repairing and maintaining
other bitches of the company, not be-
ing member of the company The
demurrer was interposed on the
grounds that the complaint does not
set out just how much work the COM
pany did for defendant at his request,
alleging only that the plaintiff main
tainsd and keep in repair all bitches,
dams. gates, fumes and other appur-
tenances necessary for distributing wa
ter to the defendant, as we'll as to the
members OF the plaintiff company, and
that defendants pro rata of this ex-
penSe was such an amount of which
amount he has paid only a part and re-
fuses to pay the balance. ATTORNEYS
Sam A. King and William Buys APP
pear for plaintiff and D. D. Houtz for
defendant. Formerly A. c. Hatch (now
judge was associated with Mr.. Houtz.
The demurrer was sustained on the
ground Of failure to state sufficient to
constitute a cause of action. The gen.
eral allegation of joint interest of de-
PENDANT with members of plaintiff COM
pany, the court held, is sufficient to get
their case in court and hold parties to
their proof. A few minor but not fatal
defects were pointed out by the court
who suggested that these be remedied
Until o'clock p. m. Tuesday was given
plaintiff TO amend
demurrer in the case of Eliza
Kuisey VS.. John NJ. Buttery came up
next, Houtz for plaintiff, King and
Buys for defendant. The suit is for
damages for and injunction against de-
PENDANT for constructing a locked gate
and other barries across the highway
adjoining his premises, obstructing
plaintiffs right OF way to and from her
land. Demurrer was interposed on the
grounds that plaintiff has not legal ca
pacity to sue for the reason that she
has suffered no obstruction or damage
different from that sustained by the
public in general. In other words. de-
PENDANT held that civil action
brought by one individual will
not be sufficient to have
highway obstruction removed I'M
less peculiar and special damage to
plaintiffs property not experienced in
common by the pubic is alleged. Plain
tiff answered that the stoppage of in
gress and egress to her land is special
and peculiar damages, in addition to
to that sustained by the general public.
The demurrer was overruled and de-
PENDANT required to answer by 2 p. m.
Tuesday. and was set for trial for
Wednesday at 9 a. m
The cases of the State VS.. Jed. Sprat
ley and Sarah Tonge. of Center curry
triaA), were set for Wednesday after
noon. The defendants are each and
separately accused of the crime of
fognication.
a. Hatch & Co. VS.. James w.
Thomas; suit for foreclosure of mort
gage. Continued for term.
Court adjourned till 8 a. m. this
morning,