The herald., 1897-04-06
RIVERSIDE COUNTY

| delivering the water represented by the
| 81 900 acre water right certificates The
| conditions of the contract have never
| been performed by the company and the
| company is now insolvent
| AS to the first point raised by the
| plaintiff, that the payment of the bonds
| is void because the place of payment is
| fixed without the state, to wit, at the
| Chase National bank of New York, the
| court cites as in contravention of Sec
tions 13 and 16, article XI, of the state
constitution, when coupled with Sec
| tions 33, 81 and 36 of the Wright act.
His conclusions on this point are up
| held. says the court, in the cases of
Yarnell VS.. the City of Los Angeles, 81
Cal, 603, and the City of Los Angeles VS.
Teed, 112 Cal, 319, although the case at
| bar contains some facts essentially diff
ferent and calls for the application of
| principles wholly foreign to the one
| there laid down. However, says the
! court, this provision does not render the
| bonds void in toto.
1.-The second and to my mind the
most serious question in this action"
says the court, sis involved in the prop
| osition that the entire issue of the bonds
is void, as they were not issued at their
par value in purchasing any land and
| water and water rights, or other prop
| erty for the use of the district The
contract provides, among other things.
| that the company agreed to sell the
81, 900 certificates and to deliver the water
represented by the certificates on the
lands of the holders thereof. and that
the district in payment for these certifi-
/ Gates and the execution of the agree
ment by the party of the first part
turned over the s765, 900 in bonds.
I'm addition to this there was to be
paid semi-annually $1.39 each on said
| certificates
THE question is, did the district by
the contract in question purchase land
| and water and water rights as con-
templated by section IL of the Wright
act, and did it acquire legal title to
| the same by virtue thereof? The COM
pany relied entirely upon future ap-
propr1ations and developments to sup
ply the water supposed to be represented
by the certificates, nor mas it carried out,
| or attempted to carry out, the terms and
conditions imposed The company agrees
to sell and transfer the certificates. but
does not sell any water or water rights
whatever, or or bitches, fumes, pipe
| lines or conduits by which 1t was to
carry water to the lands, but as the rec
ords show, still retains the title there
| to. At best, the district simply pur-
chased the promises of the Bear Valley
company to delive" certain water as
F., yet to be developed or appropriated, in
which at the time it does not appear
interest, and which, legally speaking.
was not in existence. fhe company
| could convey nothing and the district
! could acquire nothing under the condi-
| tions that existed at the time of the
| execution of the contract. The fact that
the company delivered a small quantity
of water afterward does not validate
contract absolutely void at its incep-
ton The validity of the contract is de-
pendent upon the power of the COM
pany to transfer the legal title to the
land, water and water rights at the
time the contract was executed.
From the very nature of the terms
of these certificates, d copy of which ac-
companied the decision" the court says
''it is obvious that the Bear Valley COM
pany never intended to convey abso-
lutely, either by the contract entered
into with the district or by the certifi-
Gates themselves, any water or water
rights but for and in consideration of
the $765,00 in bonds it was agreed only
to lease to the district the use of the
water, and that the district, as the pur-
chaser of the certificates, must semi
annually pay a rental of $139 on each
for the privilege of using the water, and
in the event of it's failure to do so. said
certificates are to be forfeited to the
Bear Valley company which of course
carries a forfeiture of the right to use
the water represented by the certifi-
Gates. How such a provision can be
consistent with absolute purchase by
the district it Is difficult to determine.
1t cannot be other than inferred that the
company still retains an interest in the
certificates, and the district is not in a
, position today. after the issue and de-
livery of it's $765.00 in bonds for the
supposed water rights. to sell or trans
fer the title of any land water or water
rights it might or should have acquired
by the sale of its bonds under this con-
tract
"The contract" the court concludes,
twas simply a continuing contract for
the rental of water and was not a pur-
chase of the water and water rights as
contemplated by any of the provisions
of the Wright act. 1t is therefore held
that the entire issue and delivery of
the bonds of the Alessandro irrigation
district was illegal, and that the taxes
assessed by the district to pay the
interest on these bonds are also illegal,
and that writ of injunction should is
sue as prayed for"
Jack O'Day, the 13-year-old tramp
who claims San Diego as his home, Slip
ped and fell under the train here this
morning. and as result he will prob
ably lose his right leg. The lad had
stayed all night at hobo camp at Casa
Blanca, and attempted to board this
mornings passenger train. He Stun
bled as he jumped for the brakebeam,
and the car wheels passed over his right
foot.