The Newtown bee. (Newtown, Conn.) 1877-current, 1901-03-08
LITCHFIELD COUNTY.
NEW MILFORD.

| NC W M1AEO
THE CASE OF THE wATsONs VS.. THE
WATER co.
+ The case of the Watsons VS.. the New
Milford Water Co. came up for argu-
ment on Monday before the commits
sioners There was quite agood, attend
ance, as some of the best known law
yers connected with the Litchfield
other, and as the case may be far
reaching in it's effect. For the Wat
sons there appeared those astute
lawyers, F. M. Williams, Mcmahon
and L.. J. Nickerson, and for the
Water Co. those able pleaders, States
Attorney Warner and Former Judge
J. F. Adds. Attorney Williams open
ed for the Watsons and made a strong
presentation of his side of the case.
He showed that Mrs Watson's-fa-
ther, Samuel R. Hill, was a mill
wright for many years and practical
mill man, and that he purchased a
tract of land in the south part of the
village of New Milford. By an ar
rangement with the selectmen of the
town he raised the existing highway
several feet, purchased land and flow
age rights and developed mill having
an earning capacity of about $12 day,
and operated entirely by the water of
Great Brook which ran through his
property. On Mr. Hills death this
property was distributed to his daugh-
ter, Mrs Watson, the present owner.
Pending the settlement of Mr. Hills
estate, the mill, which was rented to a
local grain dealer for $50 month, was
temporarily disabled by means OF a
freshet, which washed out portion of
the dam. The Water Co., shortly af-
ter this event and before there was
opportunity to rebuild the dam, loca-
ted it's reservoirs on Cross brook, which
before this location was the principal
source to an unvarying water supply
to Great brook, which ran the mill.
This was in 1874. The company has
since continued taking the water from
Cross brook for the purpose of supply
ing the village of New Milford with
water and has constantly increased
the quantity of water so taken. 1t has
never sought to agree with Mrs Wat
son as to the value of her property
which it was taking and has never
paid her anything for it except small
sum which was assessed against it as
damages in a trespass case brought by
the Watsons in 1896. The company
then claimed to own the water and the |
right to take it by adverse possession.
This case went to the Supreme court
and was decided against the company
on all points raised by it. After this
decision Mrs Watson demonstrated |
with the company in writing and re-
quested them to cease their unlawful |
acts. They disregarded the protest
and continued taking the water as
before, whereupon she brought second
suit against them claiming punitive
damages. While this case was pend
ing the present proceedings were
brought. The property, which as a
power as formerly used, was claimed
to have had value of from $4,000 to
IS, 900. It is now entirely worthless
as water power on account of the |
diversion Of the water by the Water
Co. The respondents claim as the
measure of their damages the value of
the property as power in 1874 when
the company began to take the water,
with interest on such sum as the COM
mittee shall find it was then worth,
rom that date to the date of their
award, together with their taxable
costs in these proceedings.
Counsel for the Water Co. claimed
hat the property never was worth
that they took away only a
portion of what water there was, and
Ill of it was worth nothing; therefore
jhe part that they took was worse than
They also claimed that in
developing the power, which they ad-
nitted formerly existed there, Mr. Hill
md his administrator after his death,
1ooded land belonging to other people
and that without so flooding land they
could develop no power of any value.
They claimed, also, as a matter of law
that the committee in estimating the
damages could not take into consider
alton any power or value which Mr.
Hills property had, because in devel-
oping it they had flooded other peoples
land. They claimed that the damages
ha o1lnura6 Chn,1I ho
inal, not to exceed in any case 800.
Attorneys Mcmahon and Nickerson |
in replying cited authorities in addi-
ton to those presented by Mr. Williams
in brief at the opening in reply to
the claims made by counsel for the
Water Co., showing that if the Water
Co. desired to make any claim about
the rights of third parties they should
have proved it in evidence, and that it
did not lie in their mouths to set up
the rights of said parties, when, so far
as the evidence showed, it appeared
that they had right to flood whatever
ground they had flooded, and had
agreed with persons flooded and paid
them for all damages which might
have been caused them.
Considerable interest was manifest
ed by the committee and by the coun-
sci on both sides on the question of
costs, including witness fees, cost of
serving subpenas, making maps and
surveys, etc. This point is not per-
fectly clear by any decision of the Su-
preme court of this state and it was