Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1897-03-04
CANALS AM mEpAIns.
The following ,mo, from Fayot;e,
Utah, under date Of March /:

inc following mos from FAyotte,
Utah, under date Of March |:
Please answor these questions in your
valuable paper;
First-The companyis canal runs along
ono side OF tho street, before the citizens
houses and lanes leading to cOrTals and
staclyafds. Tho company has put In a
bridge. II the company's water impairs
that bridge, or it is impaired otherwise,
who shall repair It, the company or the
occupants oil che premises II impairs?
Second-The company has purchased
u right Of way through the middle of u
mans city lot or field, has constructed
the canal aud tlume SO tho occupant
can run his city water across to tho lower
side Of tho canal. and bridge thai the
owner OF tho promises may cross. II the
company's wa'er impatrs that fume or
bridge, or it is impaired otherwise, who
should repair II, tho company or the oc-
cupant OF said premises?
Third-1he company has purchased
right Of way across the middle ola man's
city lot and agrees to construct and
maintain the canal and has put In tho
necessary nume to run the city wafer TO
tho lower side, and a bridge TO the samo.
II the compnny's water should impair
that ilumo or bridge, or II 10 shonld he
impaired Otherwise, who should repair
>
premises? AN OLD SUBSCRIBER.
Flrst-Ii the canal cOmpany'4 water
impairs the bridge, the company muet
repair it, aud Is responsible for all
damages cause Ly neglect in allend.
ing to the work. II other parties
injure tho bridge by any unusual aci,
then they are similarly responsible for
its repair. But II the bridge becomes
dilapidaied by ordinary wear, the duty
of putting anu keeping 1t 10 good order
rests with the canal company, which
constructed the bridge and has to
maintain 1t. This latter proposition
assumes that the canal company 10
the later arrival on the ground
aud has to maintain road.
way that it interfered with. II
new houses are put up, requiring Kew
bridgee, the canal company is not
under obligations to those whose right
Of way ia secondary to It's own, except
us 1t exceeds its own right.
Second--The company which had to
buili the ilume and bridge must keep
both in good repair from ordinary
wear, OF from any special injury caused
by the canal or its use. Tho company
protected its property into this Right Of
way of both road and irrigation ditch,
ana 1t must keep both in good con-
dition on It's property; that IL, that
which 1t was required by law to con.
stTuct 1t must maintain Ia condition
for use. Ii the flame or bridge be
injured by the owner Of the lot or by
any one else by any unusual or i'm.
proper act, then the party causing the
injury must make 1t good, or is liable
Tor damages.
Thlrd-rhe reply to the second
question covers this one. A company
which inIeTteres with public or pTi-
vate right OF way, either o. road or
irrigation ditch, cannot escape the
responsibility OF compromising for
the interference merely by temporary
compliance with the legal responsible.
lily. The compliance must bs perml-
nent and reasonable. In putting in
bridge OF fl Img over right OF way
interiered with, the bridge or fun
not only must be constructed In a raa.
aonable manner, but must be main
tanned In the same way, since at best
these are Of emporlry character
compared with that which was
intcriered with, aud which iutererencr
is allowed 10y law because the
necessity Of public convenience and
welfare. The presumption that the diic
or roauwey at that particular poiu
might nave uaeled repairs Is overcsme
by tho fact that the canal mpany
took the land there for it's owa uee,
and other parties have 20 right to III.
terieIe urthsr than to demaad t5a
they aru not c mpclled to sustain 10