Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1899-03-03

grown thereon. That for more than five
consecutive years preceding the COM
inencement of the action the dc fendant
mas maintained said dams in said rive.
ana has thereby 0bstrurtcl and raised
TIE wafer lowing in said river and
caused the same to flow over and upop
HIS iahd ami 10 irrigate thu same and the
crops thereon: that the construction and
ihalhtainahce of said dams and the d,-
version ana use of tie water hy the
means thereof We're under claim of right-
were open, notorious. peaceabIa and ~
interrupted and c~ontinuous dnri,o S.;S
time, and We're adverse to tho nI.;,+s,a
to his alleged right, and to all the world
lia' lhe piaihtiff ought not to maintains
thlS acIloh lof the reason that more than
hVe years have elapsed since PLAINTIFF
cause of action arose and since defendant
deprived the respondent and his lands of
the water demanded in the complain..
and since the plaintiff or his grantors or
predecessors were seized or possessed OF
sald waters or had the use or enioynen,
OF the same, and for the reason that tbs
PLAINTIFFS said action was barred bv the
the statute Of limitation.
The appellant Anderson by answer
tiled December 18th. 1889, alleged practic-
ally, the same matters in form rs set ont
IN the answer of Grayson differing only
i'll dates, alnount ofland owned and nos
sessed and the number of inches apnro-
priated.
ON the 2ni day of September. 1890. the
appellants Grayson and Anderson ann
the defendant William DUMMY Joined in
a supplemental answer in which it was
a'erFed' That since the filing Of the separ-
ate answers,and on them day of Septe,r-
Der, 1890. on motion of the p~laintifano-
der and judgement was rendered bv the
court Diminishing the above entitled action
as 10 The original defendants Crun. Lay
ION, Pickett, Chance, Egoff and Lamaire
lhat az to the defendants dismissed =.
the time of the of said
action, they have ever since been aDc
We're then dlVerting the waters of the
humboldt River mentioned in the COM
plant and using the same for watarino
stock, irrigating land and preventing the
same from flowing down to the lands Of
the plaintiff, and depriving the plaintiff Of
tne uNc thereof at various points
between the lands of defend
ants Dunp0y and G~rayson. and
the lands ofthe plaintiff, and below the
points" diversion by said defendants;
that at the time of the commencement of
the action, and at the time said action
was dismissed as to these defendants and
ever since, these defendants claim and
have an interest in the waters OF Hum
Doldt River and the right to use and di-
vert the same for the purposes of irriga-
ton and domestic % in various
quantities set out in the answer. 1t was
further alleged in the supplemental an
sWer, that as to the defendants to whors
TINS action was dismissed sine the tirsk
day of April, 1889, had diverted the wat
ers from said stream without plaintiffs
consent and had maintained and still
continued to maintain in said river and
Its tributaries cams and distractions 10
the flow of said waters which divert the
water from the plaintiff and his land and
that all of said defendants claim the right
to make such diversion. 1t is further
aNerred that the waters customarily flow
ing in the Humboldt River are more than
>uIilcient to supply the requirements Of
the appellants, respondent, and the de-
PENDANT Dunphy.
This supplemental answer was verified
and filed on the I'd day of Septemher
1880. Subsequently an additional supDge-
mental answer verified and filed on be-
half of William Dunphy, the appellants.
j.. Blossom, Ada H. Mcintyre. John 4.
Paul and Kate Slavan was filed. in which
II was alleged that since the filing of the
original answers on the part of the de
PENDANTS named, upOn motion and t,v
agreement and consent of the plaintiff.
and without the consent of these defend
ants, an order of the court was made dis
missing the action as to the defendants.
the Glover Valley Land and Cattle Com
pany, the GOlcOnda Land and Stock Com
pane, Louis Lay. Thomas Nelson. George
Balm, q. Gonzales, Robert Henderson.
George Russell and John Bradley: thar
the defendants above named had entered
into an agreement and stipulation with
the plaintiffs, whereby they were prr-
mitted To Withdraw their answers filed in
lHt tCIlOii ana substitute therefore new
answers consisting Of denials merely;
that such withdrawal aud dismissal was
made upon an agreement in writing to
the effect, that said answers should be
Withdrawn and new answer substituted
therefore on condition that 10 Judgment
should be taken or entered in favor Of the
said plaintiff and against these defend
ants to the agreement, or either of them
and that the action Shpuld be dismissed
without prejudice, and the plaintiffs
cause OF action survive for the period Of
three years fronn the date of said agree
ment. 1t vas further averred i'm this adj
dltlonal supplemental answer, that the
defendants to whom said action had been
under said agreement had dur
ing the year of 1888 and 1889. and at the
time said action was commenced and
ever since then, maintained dams in the
humboldt River between the lands OF the
respondents and the lands of the defend