Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1898-02-12

plaintiff. and showed that even If such
grant had been made II was and must
have been of necessity subject TO the
prior right held by the defendant canal
companies. The defendants further
proved that the special purpose in the
building of the surplus canal wns for
relieving the Jordan river of it's sur
plus water In in over flow
seasons and for draining lands
in the western part of the
city. and to drain the entire slope of
country as far to the north ana west
as the Sandridge. ana that 1t was built
and water turned into 1t in June 1856
salt Lake City and Salt Lake county
Joined with the property owners near
the Jordan river for the construction
of this surplus canal. salt Lake city
and Salt Lake county each contributing
about $1,000 towards H. The alleged
grant to the North Point Irrigation
company was not legally executed and
was not claimed to exist until after
the construction and use of
the surplus canal The drain
ditch from the west was also
constructed and used as early as June,
1856. and both Were made to lad the
natural drainage into the White Lake
The natural flow was from Hunter lake
The natural flow was from Hunter
Lake into burst Lake. thence into Sill
Yer Lake. thence into Porter Lake and
so into Decker Lake. The natural
drainage from Decker Lake was into
a depression now called the Old Reser-
voir, thence into slough then on
northerly into the White Lake and
still farther north into Smiths Lake
The drainage ditch and the Sur
plus canal We're used continuously
for the purposes for which they
We're constructed until the appli-
cation for an injunction was made and
granted temporarily, The defendant
companies also showed that the lands
watered by the plaintiffs system were
entirely worthless; that most of them
at one time had been overlooked by
waters from the Salt Lake: that they
We're thoroughly impregnated with al
kaline matter: that years ago attempts
to cultivate them had proved unsuc-
cessful and the lands had to be aban~
doned: that they could not he leached
because of the impossibiltiy of drain
age: that when pure water was ap
piled to them, the effect was to gradu-
ally bring to the surface alkaline mat
ter in the form of etilorescence. which
was deadly TO all vegetation; also that
plaintiff company was charged with a
large percentage of alkaline matter.
that did not come from the drain
ditch of the defendant companies: that
the water conducted to them by the
such nuisance as existed. was produced
by the acts of the plaintiff company
itself; and that no damages of any
kind had resulted to the plaintiffs from
the acts or works Of the defendants.
After temporary injunction had
been issued against the defendants. the
case was fully tried in the district
court. before Judge Norrell, and by
him decided In the latter part of April.
1897. His decision contains a complete
resume of the whole cause. A large
number of witnesses had been
examined. n map of the coun-
try affected. with the several
lakes. sioughs, drainage bitches. canals.
etc, etc, had been prese nted. argu-
ments pro and con had been heard and
the judge had held the matter for soma
time under advlsement. The court de-