The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1898-12-01
VERDICT FOR DEFENDANT
he SUFFERED NO DAMAGES


a.
for Irrigation.
TIE ease Of David Evans vs.. the An
aconda Copper Mining company was
concluded yesterday afternoon In the
district court. The jury returned q
verdict that IL looked upon as being
favorable to the defense.
-Four witnesses were examined yes
terday. MessrsL Thomas. Miller. Nc
0inty and Austin. Their evidence went
to show that the ditch had been dug in
1850 by william watkin Thomas and
his father.
After the testimony had been con-
cluded and the court had settled GER
tains n special findings 10 be submit
ted TO the jury for their consideration.
defendants. through Its counsel, stated
to the court that II was willing to sub
NIT the questions to the jury without
argument. PLANTING counsel stat
ed that they wished to argue h case
to the jury.
C.. J.. walsh. n of the counsel for
the plaintiff. argued the case for 20
mfnuteA At the close OF Attorney
Walsh's argument. counsel of defend
ant stated that he waived any argu-
ment pom the part of defendant. and
thereupon ". w. Mcconnell, one Of the
plaintiffs counsel. stated hat he wish
ed to argue the cas- inc did not pur-
pose to be cut out of an argument In
that way. Defendant objected any fur
ther argument Of the case on the part
Of plaintiff. as there a been no argu-
ment by defendants counsel
The court overruled h defendants
objections. and said that the court
would not enforce the rule and would
permit Mr.;McConnell to argue the case
to the jury. The counse for the de-
utes, after which the court adjourned
until 2 O'Clock In the afternoon.
. At he opening of the afternoon ses-
son. Judge Brantly submitted II ques-
lions to h jury for them to answer.
Following are the questions that were
submitted by h court to the jury, and
their answers:
Question Ibid the plaintiff, through
his predecessors in interest. make ar
Warm Springs creek by divertfng the
same from said creek and the use of
the same for irrigating the Orr ranch?
II so. how much did he so appropriate
and use. m at what time did he or
they 50 appropriate 1t?
= An8Wer@NO.
Question 2-Did the plaintiff and his
predecec sors fneinterest use the ditch
described in the plaintiffs complaint
and copnected With Warm springs
creek. Alta ponft opposite the Grant
boarding house, with h knowledge
and consent OF the defendant from the
the year 1889 down to the spring of
1895?
Answer-Yes.
O..~~sA- Dsl Az IS~rlo.s -of....
to let the plaintiff use said ditch and
water in the spring OF 1896. and has 1t
continued said refusal up to the time OF
the commencement Of this action, and
has 1t INSTRUCTED said ditch with tall
ings?
Answer-Yes
Question hWas the plaintiff damag-
I'd in the loss of crops by reason Of fall
ure to get for purposes of irrigation
so. how much?
Answer-No.
Question 5-Was the fiume across the
defendants slum ditch removed by the
defendant TO prevent a gorge I'm the
winter by the accumulation Of ice and
the flooding of the adjoining lands?
y A~nswer-Yes.
Question 6-Did the company remove
said iume for that purpose with the
knowledge and consent of the plaintiff?
Answer-No.
Question ibid the defendant per-
NIT the fiume to remain across said
tailings ditch during the ~irrigating
season without objection to enable the
plaintiff and his predecessors in interest
TO carry the water to his ranch for the
purpose of using 1t in irrigation and
domestic purposes?
Answer-Yes; but not for the exclus-
i've use Of plaintiff and his predecessors
in interest.
Question s-Was 1t the duty OF the de-
PENDANT to replace the hume after II
was taken out by the company or was
washed away by h water in its slum
ditch?
Answer-No.
Question Sid the william Watkins
Thomas heirs or the defendant compa-
ny at any time since 1889 agree or un-
dertake TO furnish water from this ditch
or bitches or n of them for h use
tin or the plaintiff. David Evans. to
irrigate the lands claimeds0y the plain
till?
Answer-No.
Question 10-was whatever use of the
water was made by Vineyard or Aus
tin or the plaintiff. Evans. or any of
them for irrigating the lands claimed
by the plaintiff since 1889 by the per-
mission of the william watkins Thorn
as hekrs or the defendant company?
AnDxer-Yes.
Question 1I-Ud the william Wat
kins Thomas heirs or h defendant
ever. in any way. take upon themselves
the duty TO construct n maintain a
ditch or nume. by agreement or other