The herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1893-1900, 1898-08-16
ST0RM~WAIfR CASE
sU1AElrr COURTS DECISION IN
THE MATTER =
aAYLoRD's MISSING INTEREST
Well Dorers Enjoined From Putting
Down . Hole on First Street.
Damages Asked for Life

The Judgment of the lower court In the
water suit of the North Fork Water Com
pany vs.. ]. s. Edwards, B. F. Edwards
and rva Edwards, IN favor of the defend
ants- was ordered Sfrirmed by the supreme
Court yesterday. The suit was brought
by the water company to compel the de-
PENDANTS to remove dam erected by them
to keep storm water from their property.
The plaintiff was the owner of ditch
used to convey water to large number of
families. and to the inmates of the South
ern California Insane asylum, for domestic
and other uses. The course OF the ditch t
the point in question was along hillside
end above the ditch the lands were unculti-
waited, and not owned by the defendants.
Below the ditch, and extending to its cen
ter, were defendants lands. The plaintiff
acquired right of way or easement over
defendants lands by prescription. When
the ditch was first dug it followed generally
the contours of the land, but IN two places
there were depressions running down the
hill side to defendants lands. A short
dune carried the water across one Of these
Expressions originally; at the other the
ditch was built on the ground.
Later, however, the ditch was recon-
structed and was converted into an open
cement ditch, and was built upon the
ground at the depressions referred to,
leaving no passage for storm water to
pass beyond It, After the cement ditch
was constructed It received the storm
water and prevented 1t from flowing onto
the defendants land; the defendants
thereupon filled up the depressions made
by storm water and planted trees.
Prior to 1885 plaintiff never exercised or
claimed the right to construct aprons at
the points mentioned, and pass the storm
water over the ditch on defendants land
but had always received the water in its
ditch with such sand and detritus as II
might carry. In the spring Of 1895 the land
above was cleared and planted to trees
end the cultivat ion Of the soil caused addi-
tional sand and detritus to flow into the
ditch to the injury Of the plaintiff and
the quality of the water.
To avoid this damage to It's water the
plaintiff in December, 1895, constructed
two aprons to carry storm water over the
ditch at these depressions and discharge II
upon the defendants lands.
BY this flow of storm water across the
aprons the defendants property was con-
siderably damaged, and to avoid further
loss the defendants constructed dams be-
low the aprons to turn back the water and
compel 1T to enter the ditch as before
This did not please the plaintiff. who
brought an action to restrain the defend
arts from maintaining the dams.
The lower court decided in favor Of the
defendants and the supreme court held
that the necessity for the aprons was Of re-
cent origin in no wise connected with the
origin of the easement. and were therefore
secondary easements. and that while the
owners of ditch have light to operate
their ditch they have no right to operate 1t
so as to render 1t nuisance. The court fur
Their held that the defendants had right
to assume that plaintiff would continue to
use the ditch In the manner it had used 1t
in acquiring the right, and that their i'm
provements on their property made after
the cement. ditch was constructed should
be protected.