The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1898-04-21
Further Testimony as to the Effici-
ency of the System.
AL SHAVER SENTENCED
SLAYER OF JOHN w. DENT GETS
ONE YEAR.
Bigamy Charge Against Daniel
Tasker Dismissed-A Dog Case
Tried Before Judge Cherry-ver-
dict For Mrs. Waugh For S275
Against the City-Probate Matters
and Short Orders.

The trial of the case of Ogden City
against the Bear Lake and River
Waterworks and Irrigation company
and others proceeded clowIy yesterday
without anything of particular inter
est being developed. Witnesses were
called by the plaintiff, mostly former
or present city officials and employees.
! By their direct testimony it was sought
| TO show that the system of waterworks
in use at the time it was sold and con-
veyed to the predecessors in interest of
these defendants, was a fairly good
system and capable of supplying the
city with all the water it really needed
In cross examination, however, it was
made to appear that the wooden pipes
through which the water vas conveyed,
were not in very excellent condition,
that in some places they had rotted
and the iron bands around them were
rusted and needed renewing in many
places. 1t also appeared that the pres
sure was at times very low and that
when the water was being used to eX-
tinguish fire, practically none could
be had for any other purpose. 1t also
appeared that the supply OF water was
wholly inadequate at that time to sup
ply the growing needs of the city.
The proceedings began yesterday
morning by Job Pingree being recalled
for further examination. but nothing
new was elected from him.
JOSEPH TAYLOR.
Joseph Taylor was then called. He
said he was at one time member of
the ogden city council, He also at
different times had filled the offices of
recorder. deputy recorder and collector
of water rates. He said that prior to
the sale of the system, the supply of
water was sufficient to the needs of the
city, but the pipes and the reservoirs
were inadequate and the city was with
out means to enlarge them.
Mr.. Taylor also testified that the city
did not use the water of the ogden
river because it contained sand and
would have choked up the headgate,
consequently the water from Strongs
and Waterfalls canyons were used in
preference to that from the Ogden
river. Witness never knew of the water
mains in Ogden canyon freezing. He
said the city increased the pipes of the
system as fast as it could using the
profits and rents derived from the dis
tribution OF water for that purpose.
MAYOR BOYLE.
Mayor Boyle testified that in 1888 he
was a member of the city council of
Ogden. In that year he went to the
reservoir with job Pingree and others
and by means of a barrel and a stop
watch made a measurement OF the flow
OF water into the reservoir, which fig
ured out II be 1885, 900 gallons every 81
hours. There was in 1888 a plentiful
supply of water but the city had not
at that time the means with which to
extend and improve the distributive
system.
EMPLOYEES TESTIFY.
Billa j. Cheney said that Mr.. Farrell
succeeded Mr.. Pingree as 'superintend-
ent of waterworks in February, 1899
Witness was employed in the depart
ment as foreman, under Farrell. The
system was composed of wooden pipe.
which sometimes got out of repair. The
wood was in good condition generally,
but the iron bands around the pipe
were rusted a good deal and frequently
broke. About 20 hg'drants, which were
in use in the old system, are still be-
ing used in the new system put in by
the defendants. The witness arrived !
at that conclusion from the fact that 20 /
of the hydrants now in use are of the |
same make and pattern as those used |
in the old system.
Nels Knudsen said he was employed |
in the water works department in the |
year 1890. The pipes were then in good |
so were the hydrants, and |
witness said that 20 of the old hydrants |
were put into the new system and were |
now in use. Other materials, crosses,
tees and so forth, which were in the |
old system, were used in the new.
Mr. Knudsen was under cross-exam-
nation when court adjourned until to-
lay.
In this case the supreme court yes
-erday denied the plaintiffs motion for
1 rehearing of the case on the point of |,
.he appointment of a receiver