The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1896-05-10


the rights to the waters of Little Cot
tonwood creek One suit was brought
by John G. Labrum on behalf Of him
self and three hundred others agains
August Stangrover, David Nicol, Lo
reno Price. John Vengren, Charles
vengren and William vengren; the
other by George Dryberg against the
Richards Irrigation company and
others
The DEGREES III both suits were signed
by Judge Young yesterday and as the
findings of fact and the conclusions OF
law interest hundreds of water users
from the Cottonwood stream The Her
aid gives them IN fun as follows:
LABRUM vs.. STANGROvER.
The above entitled action coming on
duly and regularly TO be heard for final
hearing Williams, Van Colt & Suther-
land appearing as attorneys for said
plaintiff, and Powers, Straup & Lipp-
man appearing as attorneys for the
said defendants and testimony having
been duly introduced and considered,
anu the court being fully advised in
the premises, now finds the following
facts:
FINDINGS OF FACTS.
First-Before the commencement of
this trial, the plaintiff dismissed the
action as against Ephraim Grifiths,
without costs to either party.
Second-That the plaintiff brought
this SUIT for the benefit of himself and
all other persons who use water from
either of the five original bitches here
s,,1 80 oil
sons are very numerous and it is not
practicable to bring them in as plain
tiffs in this action, and the questions
involved in this action are of common
and general interest to the plaintiff
and all such persons, and when plain
tiff is used either in these findings or
in the decree herein, it includes not
only the plaintiff but all such other
persons and their predecessors
in interest.
Third-That Little Cottonwood is a
natural stream of water situated in
Salt Lake county, Utah, rising in the
mountains IN the eastern part of said
county and fed by melting snow,
springs. rain and mountain lakes and
the whole of said stream was undi-
Verted and unappropriated for any pur-
pose in the beginning OF the year 1913.
Fourth-That said stream is f1uctu-
aiting in the amount of water it carries
and furnishes in the different seasons
of the same year and in the different
years; generally the said water reaches
Ats lowest stage in January and part
of the time gradually and part of the
time rapidly increases in quantity I'M
Ill about July list or I'd. when it grad
ually decreases. In some years there
is no surplus water and in other years
the amount and time of the surplus
water vary from year to year, but gen
orally there is surplus water for about
two months each year. to-wit from
about May 1st or May I'd to about July
LIST or July 22d of each year.
Fifth-That in the year 1913 and in
each year thereafter until and includ-
ing the year 1856 the water Of said
stream was first diverted, used and ap-
propriated as a primary water right
for agricultural, domestic and culinary
purposes by the said plaintiff during
each and every year, and in the year
1856 all the primary water of said
stream was appropriated for the pur-
poses aforesaid by the said plaintiff,
and the whole of said water then was,
ever since has been and now is reason
ably necessary for such uses and pur-
poses.
Sixth-That the said primary water
appropriated by the said plaintiff
amounts to one hundred and eighty-five
and thity-one -hundredths QS5.3D
cubic feet per second; and
whenever there is water in
said stream in excess of such amount,
it is surplus water
Seventh-Tha't in the year 1856 all
the water of said stream was divided
amongst the following five original
bitches, in the following proportions,
Tanner in Wo
Richards, one-ninth; Cahoon
& MaNfield. two and one-half-ninths
Union 6; Jordan, two and one-half-
ninths: and such water has been at
tempted to be divided in the same way
each year since 1856 and the plaintiff |
Is the owner of such water
Eighth-That neither of the said de- |
fendansts has had either the open, |
continuous and uninterrupt- |
ed use, or the notorious, visible or adj |
verse use of any of said stream of I
water. either for seven years or any |
period of time whatsoever; on the con-
trary, the said plaintiff has several |
times each year interrupted any use
made by defendants of the primary
water OF said stream. That whenever
defendants have had water during the
water season, it has been
either under the permission Of said
plaintiff or without his knowledge or
consent.
Ninth-That on July 10, 1895, and on
livers other days prior and subsequent
hereto, the defendants wrongfully and
and in violation of the
lights of plaintiff, as hereinbefore
specified, diverted a large quantity of
water from said stream, to the great
damage and irreparable injury of said
and said defendants threaten
ID to continue said diversion of water
ifter said July 49, and would have
lone so except for the restraining order
ssued herein.
Tenth-That plaintiff does not use
my Of the water appropriated as afore-
aid on subsequently acquired land nor
hereby deprive either of the said de-
endants Of any water; neither does
he plaintiff waste any water in any
manner nor unlawfully deprive any of
he defendants Of any water.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
From the foregoing findings of fact,
he court finds the following conclu-
ions of law
First-That said PLAINTIFF owns and is
l1titled to use as a primary water
light one hundred and eighty-five and
lirty-one one-hundredths QS5.31, cubic
Get per second from the said stream
f water during the whole year
Se@ond-That said defendants their
gents, servants, employees and repre-
should be perpetually re-
trained from IN any way interfering
18th any Of the said primary water of
aid stream.
Third-That no decree should be
lade as to surplus water
Fourth-That the plaintiff is entitled
!, t. - /. ]
cce4 ding to law.
LIE GRAND YOUNG.