Marietta daily leader. (Marietta, Ohio) 1895-1906, 1896-07-17
salt Water and Lima Oil.

Salt Water and Lima Oil.
Lima, o, July H. "A matter which
has given the Ohio operators more or
less trouble in the past has been the
disposal of salt water which is produc-
ed with the oil in many parts of the
field especially the North Lima section.
In few cases it has resulted in the
matter being taken into courts and en-
tailed heavy expense upon the de-
fendant operator. Some few years
ago an unjust and inequitable law was
enacted by the State Legislature which
provided for the punishment of oper-
ators who contaminated natural water
ways by turning therein salt water,
being operated along the streams The
great injustice of the law was that suit
could be brought against the operator
in any county in the State in which it
was claimed that the effects OF the pol
luton of the streams was noticeable,
and not in the county in which the oil
wells were located. At the last session
of the Legislature law was passed in
April, which changed all the previous
unjust provision which worked against
oil men. Chiefly through the organized
efforts of the Western Oil Mems asso-
ciatlon the new bill was altered so that
suit for damages had to be brought in
the county in which the wells were To-
Gated; salt water was not considered
as a communicating agent, and the re-
strictions governing the disposal of
"b. S." and other refuse matter, were
greatly brosdened. a celebrated case
has just been terminal ted in which oil
men will be interested, inasmuch as it
resulted favorably for the defendant
and will very likely mark the ending
of all such litigation. The case is that
of the State of Ohio VS. w. Fl. Bruins,
of Woodville, Sandusky county, one of
the heaviest operators in the State of
Ohio. In discussing the case the Otta-
wa County Republican says:
state of Ohio VS.. William Burns.
This was criminal action brought by
the State of Ohio against William
Burns in which he was charged with
causing and permitting refuse matter
from his oil wells in Sandusky county
to flow into the Portage river. The
case was tried in the Common Pleas
Court, and the evidence only went to
show that the defendant had permitted
salt water from his oil wells to flow in
to the river, and that this was griev-
ance to the inhabitants of Ottawa
county. The main question in the
case was whether salt water coming
from an oil we'll would be considered
under the statute as refuse matter
The Common Pleas Court, when this
question was raised there, held that
salt water was refuse product of an
oil we'll, and if the defendant permit
ted that to flow into the river that he
was guilty as he stood charged in the
Indictment, and so instructed the jury,
and the jury thereupon returned YER
diet of guilty. Exceptions were taken
aud petition in error filed in the cir
cult court The circuit court held that
salt water was not the refuse product
of an oil well, and that in permitting
it to fow in the river, the defense had
violated no provision of tho statute,
and that, therefore, the common pleas
court erred in charging the jury that
if they found that the defendant had
permitted salt water from his oil wells
to flow into the Portage river, they
should find him guilty The judgment
and verdict of the common pleas court
was set aside, and the case was re-
manded for a new trial"