The herald., 1896-12-13
THE LYLE CREEK CASE
Exhaustive Opinion Filed
by Judge Mckinley
VOLUM|NOUS RECORD OF THE CASE
Exceeding All Others Made in
This County
A CLOSE ANALYSIS MADE
The Claim of Plaintiff Under the Sew.
eral Titles Confirmed
The Litigation Has Been Continuous for the
Last Thirty Years
This Suit the Final Culmination-The
Canyon Claimants Can Assert No
Claim by Virtue Of Riparian
Exceeding All Others Made in
This County
A CLOSE ANALYSIS MADE
The Claim of Plaintiff Under the Sew.
eral Titles Confirmed
The Litigation Has Been Continuous for the
Last Thirty Years
This Suit the Final Culmination-The
Canyon Claimants Can Assert No
Claim by Virtue of Riparian
MISUNDERSTANDING Out

Rights-Defendants Out
Yesterday the anxiously awaited opin-
lon of Judge Mckinley in the Lytle creek
case was handed down.
The opinion is printed in pamphlet form
and comprises thirty mine pages of close
ly printed matter. For thirty years the
waters that have been in dispute have
been used for irrigation, and during
most of that period have been the sub
ject of dispute and litigation in numer
Gus cases, both in the lower and appel
late courts. This litigation culmina ted
In the suit which is the basis of the opin
ion just handed down, and which re-
quired nine weeks for the presentation
of the evidence followed by three weeks
of oral argumnt and nearly 1000 pages of
briefs. The record is the most volumin-
Gus ever made in the superior court of
Los Angeles county, and contained over
$500 pages, involving numerous issues Of
fact and almost every question of law
pertinent to water rights.
Some additional idea of the interests in
volved may be gained by noting the num-
ber of counsel retained. For the Lytle
pany there appeared: r. H. f. Variel, j.
s. Chapman, H. A. Barclay and f. W.
Gregg. For the Grapeland Irrigation
district: Rolfe &, Rolfe and II. B. Hotcn-
kiss. For the Lytle Creek Water COM
pany: ]. w. Stephenson and S. o. Hough-
ton. For Vosburgh, Miller & Hughes:
r. E. Houghton and Curtis Oster & Cur
tis. For E. r. Annable, John L. Camp
bell.
While the opinion just rendered is thus
of the utmost Importance, it Is written in
such an easy and simple vein as to make
1t, albeit legal document. easily un-
derstand of the people," This very
pleasing characteristic of the opinion
handed down by Judge Mckinley is of
especial benefit in case of such i'm
mense Importance as the one just con-
cluded.
The following extracts from the opin-
ion cover some of the main points, and,
with the memorandum of priority claims
already published. furnish fairly COM
pete synopsis of this noted case:
This is an action brought by plaintiff
to determine the adverse claims of var1-
Gus parties to the waters of Lytle creek,
stream with three forks, which rises
In the Sierra Madre mountains on the
slopes of Mount San Antonio commonly
known as Badly, and descends through a
rocky canyon filled with great masses of
gravel, sand and powders, and when not
deserted. continues over a sandy wash
through the Muscupiabe ranch and at
times OF flood and in seasons of great plen-
ty, runs over the San Bernardino rancho
and empties into Warm creek
Plaintiff claims that it Is the owner
of all the waters of Lytle creek, by yir-
tue of several titles.
l. Under the Lord right, which is an
undisputed prior right in this case.
amounting to a continuous flow of o6
inches, of which plaintiff owns 80 inchas
at what is known as the Lord gate
2. Under riparian rights acquired by
transfer to plaintiff by the owners of the
Muscupiabe ranch, through which The
stream flows
8. BY prior appropriation and use
O.. ~ so-called salvage right to one.
fourth the flow of the creek by the saw
mg OF that amount of water by CARRYING
1t through the Genet ditch of plaintiff.
IL also claims that none of the de-
fendats are entitled to use any of tire
waters of Lytle creek. or any waters
rising at any point in the main. branch
or side canyons of Lytle creek. and tbat
all of the attempted developments bv
various defendants divert the water If
the stream. and are an unlawful inter-
ference with plaintiffs rights.
Inc Grapeland Irrigation district
claims that 1t has, by its tunnel. tanned
an underfiow of water, which never
formed part of the surface stream ami
to which it is entitled. and that il is the
owner, by appropriation, of the surplus
waters of Lytle creek in wet and rainy
seasons. amy
The Lytle Creek Water comnarv
claims that it is the owner of ali rho
water OF Lytle creek, subject to the Lord
right, by. appropriation. adverse usa
prescription, and conveyances of ripar-
Ian rights by owners of the same in Sa,
Bernardino rancho to It,
DEFENDANTS Hughes, vosburg an1
Miller each claims riparian rights in the
stream, appropriation and developnent
OF water upon their lands
Defendant Campbell claims $50 inches
or water. to be taken at Lord gate. nm
der deed of that amount from I.vtia
Creek Water company. '-e
AS the rights of the canyon claim
ants are dependent upon the determine
non OF the rights of the other parties. I
n sIan nrst consider the ella inns of those
peiow the mouth Of the canyon. begin
ning with the controversy betwea,
plaintiff and the Lytle Creek Water
company ""'si
The plaintiff Is the undisputed owner
OF hinety-two inches. under the Lord
IiSn.; .ne only question in regard to
which is as to the amount which must he
taken at the mouth of the CANYON TO s,,n-
Ply the n1rety-two inches at the Lord
gate. AS to that. 7 am of the oninio,,
that the evidence establishes the fact
that 12S inches at the mouth of the can
yon Is necessary TO supply the amount of
ninety-two inches through the ola
ditch at the Lord gate, and that plaintiff
IL therefore entitled to the first 1913 inches
of the flow of Lytle creek t the intake of
the cement ditch.
The ownership of the next water right
In Lytle creek depends upon the cues
tion whether the Lytle Creek Water
company has acquired, by prescription
or adverse use. water right paramount
to the riparian rights of plaintiff and
also. whether the Lytle Creek Water
company has any riparian right. as the
successor or riparian owners in the San
BernardiDo rancho lying just below the
Muscupaiba.
am of the opinion that the evidence
SHOWS that the waters of the Lytle
creek, during the ordinary irrigation
season, do not, and would not If undi-
verted, flow through the San Bernardino
rancho, and that the Lytle Creek Water
company has not acquired any riparian
Nights in the stream.