Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1899-06-16
rnE CANALS DAMAGE CASE,

Tho decision rendered by Judge lilies
ir the ruit fir DAMAGE. brought by
IN, North Point Consolidated Irritation
company AGAINST the Utah and salt
Iato and other canal companies VIII
probably bc appealed from 90 the su-
promo court N the state.
t will d. remembered that when g.
q Zane was chief Justice % remark
able decision was rendered hy which
tho rropIc living ON ihe lands in The
west and southwest part OF this c'un-
g. were greatly injured. They were
required 90 close up the biz drain ditch
which they had used Cor many years
10 drain on their farms, and also TO
cease using the Surplus canal, built for
tho purpose a. name implies Tor any
thing more than an irrigation ditch
An that IN the interest 81 o. few indi-
vlduaia who claimed that the alkaline
and almost worthless lands which they
had taken up. had been damaged By
the waters which they had themselves
conveyed ON 20 those fats northwest N
this city. The decision created "a great
deal Of comment nt the time and was
rencraliy regarded az outrageous.
The purpose behind the planting N
the original suit was undoubtedly. 10
obtain damages from the companies in-
torcHtod In the surplus canal ana drain
ditch. Tho amount claimed In the
present suit was $4,000. That Tor ale
legged Injury 20 land that la known to
BE- thoroughly lmprcgnated with alk1l-
Inc matter. rendering % unsuitable Tor
farming purposes. II was tested. the
and time again. many years ago. when
the pure waters Ut the Jordan were
turned upon Il. with the result that
the moro u WINS wptDrrd the worse II
became Vegetation would grow the
nrst year or 80 hut afterwards the
mineral In the soil would rise Co the
surface and leave not voatigo Of any
kind Of growth.
To claim. therefore. that this worth
less land was damaged by the water
TO which the now posacasors claimed To
have a right. and which II so obtained
must have been had subject 90 ain the
disabilities Inherent thereto. was re-
gardcd BY the farming fraternity MS
bpth impudont and absurd. The court,
however. did not 30 determine. and
found for the plaintiffs aH against the
defendant canal companies, au the new
suit Tor $4,000 damages was institute
ed.
The chsc decided by the Supreme
Court had. of course. been acted upon
IN the District court. Judge Norrcll
went into Il thoroughly examining Wit
uesses pro and con, and he rendered uu
opinion which was published, and de-
cldcd emphutionlly ia favor ~ the de-
PENDANTS. His reasoning AMI the eve
dence on which u was based. have not
been overcome by anything presented
by the supreme court. except ln the
IJwcr Of that court 90 reverse the de-
ciaIon of the lower court. Judge Nor
rclrs opinion. with the facts cllcited
at the TRIAL, was conclusive ard iuofu-
table. But tho Supreme Court had the
last word ana The final dictum.
Ia the suit Tor damages consequent
upon the former decision. Judge Hnca
was bound Of course by the Supreme
Court ruling, as lar as Il applied 10 the
present ease. He could not go Into
the question OF the alleged troHpnss,
but only into the determination OF the
damages resultant thcrefrom. Instead
Of giving the plaintiffs $4,000. h,
awarded them atS0igj. The reason
he assigned for this were these. th,
Court said:
u have never IN my observation and
experience known ot q case where d