The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-02-17
A WA7ER-R|GHT CASE
Findings of the Judge in the
F'ifer-Gibbs Suit.
VERDICT FOR PLAINTIFFS
Conclusions of Law-The Court Finds
the Law in All Respects in Favor of
Plaintiffs-Defendant Claim Of
Ownership Is Unjust.

The findings of Judge Napton in the
case of Fifer ct al VS.. Gibbs ct al, a
suit to adjudicate the ownership of a
certain water right, which was heard in
the district court on Feb. and sub
mitted to the court on the same day,
were handed down yesterday. They are
as follows:
First--That the ditch mentioned in
plaintiffs complaint and the defend
ants answer, was dug and constructed
in the year 1879 and enlarged again in
1880, and that the water carried through
said ditch estimated to be from 500
to 1000 inches of water, was appropri-
ated during the year 1879 from Lost
creek.
Second-That the said Carlo Andre
oil was not in 1879 and 1880 the owner
of any part of said ditch or of any
right, title or interest therein, and that
he was not the owner by appropriation
or otherwise of any Of the waters car
ried through said ditch, and that the
waters carried through said ditch were
appropriated by John Fifer, ST., de-
ceased, David Scott and Anton Chris
Jensen, and they then and there be-
came the owners of the same, and they
and their successors have ever since
been and now are the owners of said
ditch and of said water right.
Third-That the said Carlo Andreoii
was not at any time in the open, no.
torious or uninterrupted possession of
the waters carried through said ditch
or of said ditch, but that any possess
sion which the said Carlo Andreoli had
at any time, except during the year
1879, when he used it by permission,
was clandestine; that neither have the
said defendants, or either of them, since
the death of the said Carlo Andreoli
in 1897, been in the open, notorious or
uninterrupted possession of any of the
waters carried in said ditch in contro
versy, but when they or either of them
have been in the possession of the
same, such possession was clandestine,
except during the year 1879. and any
possession of any of the waters of said
ditch, or ditch, by the said Carlo An
dreoli or any of the said defendants
was without right and was not at any
time continuous and was not at any
time uninterrupted.
Fourth-That the said defendants
claim and interest in said ditch and
water right. but such claim is with
out right and unjust, unlawful and
wrongful and that neither of said de-
PENDANTS, jointly or severally, have any
estate, right, title or interest whatever
in the said canal or ditch, or in the
waters appropriated to run through
said ditch. or any part thereof, and
that said plaintiffs are the owners and
in possession of and entitled to the pos
session of all of said ditch and the said
waters and water right mentioned in
the plaintiffs complaint and defend
ants answer: - No-'
Fifth-That saidAdefendants have I'M
lawfully and wrongfully diverted the
waters from said ditch as alleged in
plaintiffs complaint and threaten to
continue to divert said water.
Conclusions of Law.
From the foregoing facts and those
admitted in the pleadings herein. the
court finds as conclusions of law here
in:
First-That the plaintiffs are the own
ers of the ditch and water right men,
toned in plaintiffs complaint and are
entitled to the possession thereof.
SecOnd-That the said defendants own
no right, title or interest in said ditch or
water right or waters. and that the
plaintiffs are entitled to- Judgment de-
claring such ownership in them and
declaring that said defendants have
no right, title or interest in said ditch
or water right and are entitled to
judgment for injunction against the
said defendants using such ditch or di-
verting said water.
Third-And the court finds the law in
all respects in favor of the plaintiffs.
Judgment is ordered for the plain
tiffs in accordance herewith, and for
costs of suit.
YELLING NAPTON Judee